[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19539-19576]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Welch of Vermont). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 547 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 3043.

                              {time}  1025


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, 
with Mrs. Tauscher in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 
17, 2007, amendment No. 5 printed in the Congressional Record by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) had been disposed of and the bill 
had been read through page 42, line 21.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Graves

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Graves:
       Page 42, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $125,000,000''.
       Page 42, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.
       Page 84, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $125,000,000)''.

  Mr. GRAVES. Madam Chairman, let me begin by thanking the chairman and 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for working together in 
a true bipartisan fashion to begin providing a long overdue down 
payment to special education funding. In particular, I want to thank 
Ranking Member Walsh for his amendment in committee to provide a $335 
million increase in special education funding for fiscal year 2008.
  When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was signed into 
law more than 30 years ago, the Federal Government committed to pay the 
States 40 percent of the costs of providing services to students 
covered under this act. However, for three decades the Federal 
Government has often provided less than half the money promised.
  What has this shortfall meant? For one, it has meant higher taxes at 
the State and local levels and less funding for other education 
programs as States and local governments struggle to make up the 
shortfall in Federal resources.
  The amendment I introduce today builds on the bipartisan cooperation 
of the House Appropriations Committee by providing a further $125 
million increase in funding for IDEA part B grants to the States. To 
pay for my amendment, I offset the cost by reducing a portion of the 
U.S. contribution to the Global Fund. My amendment helps us fulfill our 
commitment to funding special education while also providing a small 
increase in funding to the Global Fund as was provided last year. I 
don't take this money from any domestic program. These funds are 
dedicated to an overseas program, and they still see a $1 million 
increase over last year.
  My amendment sets the right priorities for our Nation's children with 
special needs, and I urge support from all of my colleagues. Again, I 
would thank the chairman and ranking member for their hard work on 
this.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, frankly, I am looking for my ranking 
minority member. But until he gets here let me take a little time and 
say that I would simply suggest to the gentleman, if he thinks this is 
a good idea, that he take this idea up with the President of the United 
States.
  What this committee has tried to do both on this subcommittee and on 
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee is to respect and work with the 
administration in their effort to provide global leadership to deal 
with the AIDS epidemic around the world. And the fact is that this item 
in this bill is a critical piece of the President's program.
  Given our disarray around the world because of Iraq, I think it is a 
wonderful exception when we can be seen to be providing constructive 
leadership in the world on something. And certainly, although I have 
many differences with the President, this is one area where I think he 
has exercised significant leadership.

                              {time}  1030

  And I think it would undercut our standing yet again in the world if 
we were to withdraw this funding.
  I just think that we've struck a good balance with respect to this 
program. I think both subcommittees have tried to see to it that we 
meet our international responsibilities.
  You and I are very lucky human beings. Our souls were, thanks to God, 
infused in a body that lives in the United States. If they had been 
infused in a body that was born in Africa or in Asia or in some of the 
other hot spots in the world in terms of these diseases, I think we 
would take a look at this issue in a quite different way.
  This program provides the only real leadership in the world to attack 
this program. I think it would be a horrendous mistake if we were to 
adopt the gentleman's amendment. I would urge defeating the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRAVES. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


             national institute of general medical sciences

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to general medical sciences, $1,966,019,000.


        national institute of child health and human development

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to child health and human development, $1,273,863,000.


                         national eye institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to eye diseases and visual disorders, $677,039,000.


          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 243, 281 et seq.) 
     with respect to environmental health sciences, $652,303,000.


                      national institute on aging

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to aging, $1,062,833,000.


 national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases, 
     $516,044,000.


    national institute on deafness and other communication disorders

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to deafness and other communication disorders, $400,305,000.


                 national institute of nursing research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241,

[[Page 19540]]

     281 et seq.) with respect to nursing research, $139,527,000.


           national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to alcohol abuse and alcoholism, $442,870,000.


                    national institute on drug abuse

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to drug abuse, $1,015,559,000.


                  national institute of mental health

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to mental health, $1,425,531,000.


                national human genome research institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to human genome research, $493,996,000.


      national institute of biomedical imaging and bioengineering

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to biomedical imaging and bioengineering research, 
     $303,318,000.


                 national center for research resources

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to research resources and general research support grants, 
     $1,171,095,000.


       national center for complementary and alternative medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to complementary and alternative medicine, $123,380,000.


       national center on minority health and health disparities

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to minority health and health disparities research, 
     $202,691,000.


                  john e. fogarty international center

       For carrying out the activities of the John E. Fogarty 
     International Center (described in subpart 2 of part E of 
     title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287b)), 
     $67,599,000.


                      national library of medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to health information communications, $325,484,000, of which 
     $4,000,000 shall be available until expended for improvement 
     of information systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2008, 
     the National Library of Medicine may enter into personal 
     services contracts for the provision of services in 
     facilities owned, operated, or constructed under the 
     jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health: Provided 
     further, That in addition to amounts provided herein, 
     $8,200,000 shall be available from amounts available under 
     section 241 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 238j) 
     to carry out the purposes of the National Information Center 
     on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology 
     established under section 478A of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 286d) and related health services.


                         office of the director

       For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the 
     Director, National Institutes of Health, $1,114,422,000, of 
     which up to $14,000,000 shall be used to carry out section 
     214 of this Act, of which $110,900,000 shall be for 
     continuation of the National Children's Study, and of which 
     $495,153,000 shall be available for the Common Fund 
     established under section 402A(c)(1) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282a): Provided, That funding shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 29 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only: Provided further, That 
     the National Institutes of Health is authorized to collect 
     third party payments for the cost of clinical services that 
     are incurred in National Institutes of Health research 
     facilities and that such payments shall be credited to the 
     National Institutes of Health Management Fund: Provided 
     further, That all funds credited to such Fund shall remain 
     available for one fiscal year after the fiscal year in which 
     they are deposited: Provided further, That no more than 
     $500,000 shall be available to carry out section 499 of the 
     Public Health Service Act(42 U.S.C. 290b): Provided further, 
     That amounts appropriated to the Common Fund shall be in 
     addition to any amounts allocated to activities related to 
     the Common Fund through the normal research priority-setting 
     process of individual institutes and centers: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided $10,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses when 
     specifically approved by the Director of the National 
     Institutes of Health: Provided further, That the Office of 
     AIDS Research within the Office of the Director of the 
     National Institutes of Health may spend up to $4,000,000 to 
     make grants for construction or renovation of facilities as 
     provided for in section 2354(a)(5)(B) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300cc-41(a)(5)(B)).


                        buildings and facilities

       For the study of, construction of, renovation of, and 
     acquisition of equipment for, facilities of or used by the 
     National Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of 
     real property, $121,081,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


               substance abuse and mental health services

       For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa et seq., 300w et seq.) (``PHS 
     Act'') with respect to substance abuse and mental health 
     services, the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with 
     Mental Illness Act (42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq.), and section 301 
     of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 241) with respect to program 
     management, $3,272,928,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 
     section 520A(f)(2) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-32(f)(2)), 
     no funds appropriated for carrying out section 520A are 
     available for carrying out section 1971 of such Act: Provided 
     further, That in addition to amounts provided herein, the 
     following amounts shall be available under section 241 of the 
     PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 238j): (1) $79,200,000 to carry out 
     subpart II of part B of title XIX of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300x-21 et seq.) to fund section 1935(b) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300x-35(b)) relating to technical assistance, national 
     data, data collection, and evaluation activities, and further 
     that the total available under this Act for activities under 
     such section 1935(b) shall not exceed 5 percent of the 
     amounts appropriated for subpart II of part B of title XIX of 
     such Act; (2) $21,413,000 to carry out subpart I of part B of 
     title XIX of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-1 et seq.) to fund 
     section 1920(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-9(b)) relating to 
     technical assistance, national data, data collection, and 
     evaluation activities, and further that the total available 
     under this Act for activities under such section 1920(b) 
     shall not exceed 5 percent of the amounts appropriated for 
     subpart I of part B of title XIX of such Act; (3) $16,000,000 
     to carry out national surveys on drug abuse; and (4) 
     $4,300,000 to evaluate substance abuse treatment programs.


               Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Whitfield

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

       Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Whitfield:
       Page 49, line 25, before the period insert ``Provided 
     further, That, of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $10,000,000 is for carrying out section 399O of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g-4)''.

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, in 2005, the U.S. Congress adopted the 
National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, which was 
signed into law by the President in 2005. The amendment at the desk 
simply provides funding of $10 million for this authorized program. The 
$10 million is taken from the Secretary's Management Account, so the 
offset is taken care of.
  On March 29 of this year, 2007, Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member 
Barton and the chairman and ranking member of every subcommittee of 
Energy and Commerce, as well as other Members, sent a letter to 
Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis requesting that they consider 
funding this program. And we had hoped that it would be included in 
this HHS appropriation bill because NASPER, as passed by the Congress, 
is located and placed at HHS.
  Now, the Appropriations Committee on another bill has provided 
funding for an unauthorized drug monitoring program located at the 
Department of Justice. That program is primarily based and focused on 
law enforcement. And we do not object to that program in any way, but I 
might say that last year, for 2007 and 2006, money was made available 
for both the NASPER program at HHS and the Department of Justice 
program, which is more based on law enforcement. The NASPER program 
really addresses the prescription drug addiction problem and helps 
physicians work with patients and makes physicians aware of 
prescriptions that those patients have. So last year we were quite 
pleased that both programs were funded. And we were disappointed that 
this year's program, the authorized program, was not funded; the 
unauthorized program was funded.
  And so we come today and ask the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee and the ranking member, both of whom have worked diligently 
on a very complicated bill that provides great services to our country, 
we come this morning and ask them to consider funding this authorized 
program.

[[Page 19541]]

  I might add that Secretary Leavitt testified for it. We had 2 years 
of hearings on this program. Secretary Leavitt endorsed it. Former 
Secretary Tommy Thompson endorsed it. And as I said, we're not asking 
that they defund the unauthorized program because we know that it's 
doing a good job, but we're simply saying the Energy and Commerce 
Committee had 2 years of hearings, passed this legislation. It passed 
the Senate overwhelmingly. The President signed it. It was funded last 
year, and we strongly request that the chairman consider funding it 
again this year.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition 
to my friend's amendment.
  The gentleman's amendment really is unnecessary, and it duplicates 
work that the Justice Department is engaged in under the Prescription 
Drug Monitoring Grant Program.
  I understand that primarily, as a result of the efforts of Mr. Rogers 
of Kentucky, the Justice Department has been operating for several 
years, running a grant program to assist States in building and 
enhancing prescription drug monitoring systems, facilitating the 
exchange of information among States, and providing technical 
assistance and training for effective State programs.
  The Office of Justice Programs runs this grant program, along with 
the assistance and technical expertise of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration and is currently funded at $7.5 million.
  From all accounts, the Justice Department effort is well run and 
effective. For that reason, I ask Members to oppose this amendment, 
which would set up a competing and duplicative program.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. 
Whitfield's amendment that would amend funding for the National All 
Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, or NASPER.
  Two years ago, Congress passed NASPER and it was signed into law, 
making it the only statutory authorized program to assist States in 
combating prescription drug abuse of controlled substances through 
prescription drug monitoring programs. Congress realized that more 
needed to be done to aid States to set up or improve State systems that 
enable authorities to identify prescription drug abusers, as well as 
the problem doctors who betray their high ethical standards of their 
profession by over or incorrectly prescribing prescription drugs.
  The new law, NASPER law, authorized $10 million in fiscal year 2008 
and $10 million each year through fiscal year 2010. Although NASPER has 
been signed into law, Congress has yet to appropriate funds to the HHS 
for this program for the past 3 years. Given the existence of this 
authorized program, it would seem to be inappropriate not to fund 
NASPER, while funding unauthorized prescription drug monitoring 
programs. By doing this, Congress sets a bad precedent in sanctioning 
the creation and continued operation of Federal programs through the 
appropriation process.
  NASPER was passed with bipartisan support after many years of hard 
work by many Members on both sides of the aisle and those of us who are 
on the Energy and Commerce Committee. NASPER is the only solution which 
will assist physicians, establish minimum standards for State 
prescription drug monitoring programs, and substantially reduce 
prescription drug abuse.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Whitfield amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Whitfield 
amendment to fund NASPER, the National All Schedules Prescription 
Electronic Reporting Act, which the gentleman from Kentucky and I 
sponsored in the last Congress.
  As was mentioned already, this is the authorized program that would 
deal with this issue. And I don't want to get into necessarily 
contrasting this with the other program that the gentleman from New 
York mentioned, but I do think it's necessary to understand that this 
program is authorized and it's not funded. I mean, obviously we should 
be funding programs that are authorized, not those that are not.
  But beyond that, the bottom line is that the NASPER program mandates 
that States participate in the program. We only have about 22 States 
now that are participating, so I would certainly argue that the status 
quo with this alternative Justice Department program simply is not 
working. If we want more States to get involved, we need to fund the 
authorized program.
  During the time since August of 2005 when this became law and has not 
been funded, during this time since then prescription drug abuse has 
reached an all-time high, with an estimated 9 million Americans using 
prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes. Most disturbing is the fact 
that there is an epidemic of prescription drug abuse among teenagers. 
So if the argument is that the existing Justice Department program is 
working and we don't need to fund this authorized program, I think the 
facts show very much the opposite.
  NASPER will ensure that prescription drugs are only being used for 
medical purposes. With better monitoring and tracking systems, people 
will not be able to seek multiple prescriptions or cross State lines to 
get prescriptions filled without their provider knowing. NASPER reaches 
across State lines, with timetables and benchmarks aimed at eliminating 
the problem of prescription drug abuse. It's a public health program in 
the Department of Health and Human Services, where it belongs, not in 
the Justice Department. And most important, it is the only statutorily 
authorized program to assist States in combating prescription drug use.
  Right now, a lot of the program is with doctors. The Justice 
Department program doesn't really help doctors prevent this epidemic. 
Also, the Justice Department program is totally focused on enforcement, 
not on trying to get people more involved in the States at a preventive 
level dealing with the doctors. We have enforcement as well, but it's 
not the only thing.
  I would simply say that we've made this pledge a couple of times. My 
understanding is that this amendment is going to be withdrawn. But I 
just need to ask the appropriators, please consider the fact that in 
the future we need to address this. This needs to be affected. The 
other program that's in effect now is not doing the job. We simply ask 
that you collectively take a look at this and figure out how to do it 
so we can get funding for the NASPER program, which is the one that the 
Congress authorized and which will address this epidemic effectively. 
We're not having an effective response right now.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee and the ranking member that we didn't really want to force 
this issue this morning. But it is a program, as has been said, we 
spent 2 years having hearings on this program. It mandates States to 
adopt these programs. We feel like it is a great program. It

[[Page 19542]]

was funded last year, and we would respectfully request that at 
conference maybe the chairman and ranking member would work with us in 
trying to address the issue.
  Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say that we sort of feel like we're caught in 
the middle of this one because Mr. Lewis, the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, gave us a lecture yesterday about how we 
should avoid duplicative programs.

                              {time}  1045

  Then, today, this amendment would have the effect of creating in one 
department a program that is virtually identical to a program that 
already exists in another department. So we can't win, no matter how we 
deal with the issue. I don't care which agency this is in. I just want 
it to be wherever it would be run the most efficiently and effectively.
  I am certainly willing to discuss with anybody involved in the issue 
how we resolve this issue. We didn't put it in in the first place. It 
was put in by, as you know, a person from your party from your own 
State.
  So we are happy to work with all of you, but I don't want to get 
cross-wised between two people from the same State. I don't want to be 
standing here accepting an amendment that creates a duplicative 
program.
  So I think the most constructive result would be if the gentleman 
would withdraw his amendment and we try to work this out down the line, 
so that if it is not in the right place, we can talk about how to get 
it in the right place.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Chairman Obey, I am going to withdraw the amendment, 
but I would like to make this point: This is an authorized program that 
we are talking about. We had 2 years of hearings on this project. There 
is some sentiment in the Congress, I believe today, that the 
appropriators seem to authorize on their appropriations bill when it is 
convenient for them.
  Madam Chairman, I am going to withdraw the amendment because of the 
respect that I have for the gentleman from Wisconsin and the ranking 
member, as well as the Member from Kentucky that was talked about.
  I do believe that this is an effective program. We look forward to 
working with you as we continue through the process to try to resolve 
it in some way.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield further, if I can simply say 
again, on this side of the aisle I feel like I am being whipsawed. This 
was in the other bill because we were trying to accommodate a 
Republican Member of the House who felt strongly that it ought to be in 
that bill. Now we are being criticized by another Republican from the 
same State because we accommodated the other Republican. I can't go in 
both directions at the same time, which is why I don't seek to have 
this program in any department. I don't care where it is.
  I would just as soon that you settle your differences with your 
colleague from your own State, and when you have, come and see me. I 
will try to work with whoever is the winner of the rassling match.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I am here as an 
advocate for the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows.

               Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


                    healthcare research and quality

       For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 et seq., 299 et seq.), and part A 
     of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et 
     seq.), $329,564,000; and in addition, amounts received from 
     Freedom of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency 
     agreements, and the sale of data shall be credited to this 
     appropriation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section 
     937(c) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed 
     $47,064,000.

               Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services


                     grants to states for medicaid

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act, $141,630,056,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       For making, after May 31, 2008, payments to States under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of 
     fiscal year 2008, for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States or in the case of section 
     1928 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396s) on behalf 
     of States under title XIX of the Social Security Act for the 
     first quarter of fiscal year 2009, $67,292,669,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with 
     respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during 
     such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and 
     approved in that or any subsequent quarter.


                  payments to health care trust funds

       For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     provided under sections 1844 and 1860D-16 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w, 1395w-116), sections 103(c) 
     and 111(d) of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 426a(c), 1395i-1), section 278(d) of the Tax Equity 
     and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 426 note), 
     and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section 
     201(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(g)), 
     $188,828,000,000.
       In addition, for making matching payments under section 
     1844 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w), and 
     benefit payments under 1860D-16 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     116), not anticipated in budget estimates, such sums as may 
     be necessary.


                           program management

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI, 
     XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, titles XIII 
     and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical 
     Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed 
     $3,230,163,000, to be transferred from the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Funds, as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(g)); together with all funds 
     collected in accordance with section 353 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263a) and section 1857(e)(2) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27(e)(2)), funds 
     retained by the Secretary pursuant to section 1893(h)(1)(C) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ddd(h)(1)(C)), and 
     such sums as may be collected from authorized user fees and 
     the sale of data, which shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That all funds derived in accordance with 
     section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, from 
     organizations established under title XIII of the Public 
     Health Service Act shall be credited to and available for 
     carrying out the purposes of this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That $49,869,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, is for contract costs for the Healthcare 
     Integrated General Ledger Accounting System: Provided 
     further, That $163,800,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, is for Medicare contracting reform 
     activities of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     are available for the Healthy Start, Grow Smart program under 
     which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may, 
     directly or through grants, contracts, or cooperative 
     agreements, produce and distribute informational materials 
     including, but not limited to, pamphlets and brochures on 
     infant and toddler health care to expectant parents enrolled 
     in the Medicaid program and to parents and guardians enrolled 
     in such program with infants and children: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall collect 
     fees in fiscal year 2008 from Medicare Advantage 
     organizations pursuant to section 1857(e)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395s-27(e)(2)) and from eligible 
     organizations with risk-sharing contracts under section 1876 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm) pursuant to section 
     1876(k)(4)(D) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm(k)(4)(D)).


              health care fraud and abuse control account

       In addition to amounts otherwise available for program 
     integrity and program management, $383,000,000, to be 
     transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     authorized by section 201(g) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 401(g)), of which $288,480,000 is for the Medicare 
     Integrity Program at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
     Services to conduct oversight of activities authorized in 
     titles I and II of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
     Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
     173), with oversight activities including those activities 
     listed in section 1893(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395www(b)); of which $36,690,000 is for the 
     Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector 
     General; of which

[[Page 19543]]

     $21,140,000 is for the Medicaid program integrity activities; 
     and of which $36,690,000 is for the Department of Justice: 
     Provided, That the report required by section 1817(k)(5) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(k)(5)) for fiscal 
     year 2008 shall include measures of the operational 
     efficiency and impact on fraud, waste and abuse in the 
     Medicare and Medicaid programs for the funds provided by this 
     appropriation.

                Administration for Children and Families


  payments to states for child support enforcement and family support 
                                programs

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social 
     Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), 
     $2,949,713,000, to remain available until expended; and for 
     such purposes for the first quarter of fiscal year 2009, 
     $1,000,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       For making payments to each State for carrying out the 
     program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under 
     title IV-A of the Social Security Act as in effect before the 
     effective date of the program of Temporary Assistance for 
     Needy Families (TANF) with respect to such State, such sums 
     as may be necessary: Provided, That the sum of the amounts 
     available to a State with respect to expenditures under such 
     title IV-A in fiscal year 1997 under this appropriation and 
     under such title IV-A as amended by the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 shall not exceed the limitations under section 116(b) of 
     such Act.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles 
     I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and 
     the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last three 
     months of the current fiscal year for unanticipated costs, 
     incurred for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be 
     necessary.


                   low-income home energy assistance

       For making payments under section 2604(a)-(d) of the Low-
     Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(a)-
     (d)), $1,980,000,000.
       For making payments under section 2604(e) of the Low-Income 
     Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(e)), 
     $682,000,000, notwithstanding the designation requirement of 
     section 2602(e) of such Act.


                     refugee and entrant assistance

       For necessary expenses for refugee and entrant assistance 
     activities and for costs associated with the care and 
     placement of unaccompanied alien children authorized by title 
     IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1521-
     1524) and section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act 
     of 1980 (8 U.S.C. 1522 note), for carrying out section 462 of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279), and for 
     carrying out the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22 
     U.S.C. 2152 note) $650,630,000, of which up to $9,814,000 
     shall be available to carry out the Trafficking Victims 
     Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.): Provided, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading pursuant to 
     section 414(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and 
     section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 for fiscal 
     year 2008 shall be available for the costs of assistance 
     provided and other activities to remain available through 
     September 30, 2010.


   payments to states for the child care and development block grant

       For carrying out the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.), $2,137,081,000 shall be 
     used to supplement, not supplant, State general revenue funds 
     for child care assistance for low-income families: Provided, 
     That $18,777,370 shall be available for child care resource 
     and referral and school-aged child care activities, of which 
     $982,080 shall be for the Child Care Aware toll-free hotline: 
     Provided further, That, in addition to the amounts required 
     to be reserved by the States under section 658G, $267,785,718 
     shall be reserved by the States for activities authorized 
     under section 658G, of which $98,208,000 shall be for 
     activities that improve the quality of infant and toddler 
     care: Provided further, That $9,821,000 shall be for use by 
     the Secretary for child care research, demonstration, and 
     evaluation activities.


                      social services block grant

       For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397a), $1,700,000,000.


                children and families services programs

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5711 et seq.), the 
     Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act 
     of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15001 et seq.), the Head Start Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), the Child Abuse Prevention and 
     Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), sections 310 and 316 
     of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 
     10409, 10416), the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 2991a et seq.), title II of the Child Abuse Prevention 
     and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5111 
     et seq.) (adoption opportunities), sections 330F and 330G of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-6, 254c-7), the 
     Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 670 
     note), sections 261 and 291 of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (42 U.S.C. 15421, 15461), subpart 1 of part B of title 
     IV and sections 413, 1110, and 1115 of the Social Security 
     Act, for making payments under the Community Services Block 
     Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.), sections 439, 473B, and 
     477 of the Social Security Act, and the Assets for 
     Independence Act (42 U.S.C. 604 note), and for necessary 
     administrative expenses to carry out such Acts and titles I, 
     IV, V, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social Security Act, 
     the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the Low-Income 
     Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, title IV of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee 
     Education Assistance Act of 1980, and section 505 of the 
     Family Support Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 9926), $9,125,940,000, 
     of which $9,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2009, shall be for grants to States for adoption incentive 
     payments, as authorized by section 473A of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b) and may be made for adoptions 
     completed before September 30, 2008: Provided, That 
     $6,963,571,000 shall be for making payments under the Head 
     Start Act, of which $1,388,800,000 shall become available 
     October 1, 2008, and remain available through September 30, 
     2009: Provided further, That $701,125,000 shall be for making 
     payments under the Community Services Block Grant Act: 
     Provided further, That not less than $8,000,000 shall be for 
     section 680(3)(B) of the Community Services Block Grant Act: 
     Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided 
     herein, $6,000,000 shall be available from amounts available 
     under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry 
     out the provisions of section 1110 of the Social Security 
     Act: Provided further, That to the extent Community Services 
     Block Grant funds are distributed as grant funds by a State 
     to an eligible entity as provided under the Act, and have not 
     been expended by such entity, they shall remain with such 
     entity for carryover into the next fiscal year for 
     expenditure by such entity consistent with program purposes: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall establish procedures regarding the disposition 
     of intangible property which permits grant funds, or 
     intangible assets acquired with funds authorized under 
     section 680 of the Community Services Block Grant Act, to 
     become the sole property of such grantees after a period of 
     not more than 12 years after the end of the grant for 
     purposes and uses consistent with the original grant: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated for section 
     680(a)(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act shall be 
     available for financing construction and rehabilitation and 
     loans or investments in private business enterprises owned by 
     community development corporations: Provided further, That 
     $64,350,000 is for a compassion capital fund to provide 
     grants to charitable organizations to emulate model social 
     service programs and to encourage research on the best 
     practices of social service organizations: Provided further, 
     That $15,720,000 shall be for activities authorized by the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002, of which $10,890,000 shall be 
     for payments to States to promote access for voters with 
     disabilities, and of which $4,830,000 shall be for payments 
     to States for protection and advocacy systems for voters with 
     disabilities: Provided further, That $136,664,000 shall be 
     for making competitive grants to provide abstinence education 
     (as defined by section 510(b)(2) of the Social Security Act) 
     to adolescents, and for Federal costs of administering the 
     grant: Provided further, That grants under the immediately 
     preceding proviso shall be made only to public and private 
     entities which agree that, with respect to an adolescent to 
     whom the entities provide abstinence education under such 
     grant, the entities will not provide to that adolescent any 
     other education regarding sexual conduct, except that, in the 
     case of an entity expressly required by law to provide health 
     information or services the adolescent shall not be precluded 
     from seeking health information or services from the entity 
     in a different setting than the setting in which abstinence 
     education was provided: Provided further, That within amounts 
     provided herein for abstinence education for adolescents, up 
     to $10,000,000 may be available for a national abstinence 
     education campaign: Provided further, That in addition to 
     amounts provided herein for abstinence education for 
     adolescents, $4,500,000 shall be available from amounts 
     available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act 
     to carry out evaluations (including longitudinal evaluations) 
     of adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches: Provided 
     further, That up to $2,000,000 shall be for improving the 
     Public Assistance Reporting Information System, including 
     grants to States to support data collection for a study of 
     the system's effectiveness.


                  Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Holt

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

       Amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Holt:
       Page 58, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $21,000,000)''.

[[Page 19544]]

       Page 60, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $21,000,000)''.
       Page 60, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $15,00,000)''.
       Page 60, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 63, line 4, insert after the first dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $21,000,000)''.

  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, as you may know, the funding authorized for 
the Help America Vote Act of 2002, known as HAVA, for disability access 
and protection and advocacy payments, was never fully appropriated. 
Section 261 of HAVA authorized $100 million in disability access 
funding to make polling places accessible to individuals with 
disabilities and to provide them with information about the 
accessibility of polling places.
  I am sure the Chair and my colleagues would agree, it is important 
for equality under the law that all voters have good access to voting.
  In addition, section 291 authorized $10 million annually for fiscal 
years 2003 through 2006 and such sums as necessary thereafter to pay 
for the protection and advocacy systems of each State to ensure full 
participation in the electoral process for individuals with 
disabilities, including the process of registering to vote, casting a 
vote and gaining access to polling places. To date, only $55 million of 
that amount has been appropriated under HAVA to fund accessibility, and 
only $22 million has been appropriated to fund protection and advocacy 
systems.
  Voting is indeed the cornerstone of our democracy, and unless all 
eligible voters are assured access to the polls, that fundamental right 
and the integrity of our electoral system generally are severely 
undermined. Therefore, I seek to amend the bill to provide $15 million 
in funding for accessibility under section 261 of HAVA, and an 
additional $6 million in funding for protection and advocacy systems 
under section 291 of HAVA, for a total increase of $21 million. This 
would result, as you can quickly calculate, in several hundred thousand 
dollars per State to assist in voting for voters with disabilities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this increase.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I understand the motivation behind this 
amendment. The gentleman wants to provide additional funding for a very 
legitimate purpose. It is something we should have done a long time 
ago, and I understand that. But having said that, I am simply tired of 
having to defend administrative accounts from people on both sides of 
the aisle.
  So I am not going to object to the amendment, but I do want to point 
out to the gentleman, as I will point out to many other Members who 
offer similar amendments today, that this committee is being whipsawed. 
We are being told by the White House that there is too much money in 
this bill, yet virtually every amendment that has been offered, save 
one, has been motivated principally by a desire to increase rather than 
decrease funds in this bill. This is another similar amendment. While I 
recognize that it has an offset, it is a ``let's pretend'' offset, just 
like a number of the offsets were last night.
  Anybody who understands how government works needs to understand that 
if an agency is a grant-making agency and if you gut its administrative 
budget, then there ain't going to be nobody in the agency to issue the 
grants in the first place. Therefore, I want Members who offer these 
amendments to understand that even if they are accepted, when we go to 
conference we are going to have to make very large adjustments, and a 
lot of what is adopted on the House floor, if it is based on some of 
these ``let's pretend'' offsets, will in fact wind up on the cutting 
room floor by the time we get back from conference. That is just a 
practical fact of life.
  Madam Chairman, as I say, I will not object to the gentleman's 
amendment, but I don't want anyone to be under any illusion that we can 
fund all of these additional wonderful things by simply going to the 
administrative budgets of the agencies, because occasionally you need 
somebody in that office to turn on the light.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his agreement, 
and simply ask that he continue, as he always has, to stand up for the 
American ideal of equality for all at the polling place.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I will be very brief, Madam Chairman. I 
absolutely agree with the chairman's statement. It is a responsible 
statement. We can't continue to do the nice things on the one hand by 
looking like we are putting more money into a program, and at the same 
time cutting the fat, muscle and limbs of the departments that are 
supposed to administer these programs. So I support the chairman's 
contention. We will deal with this in conference.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I just want to commend the chairman for 
the work that this committee has done to achieve the very purpose that 
this amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey has proposed.

                              {time}  1100

  Frankly, we have this year on July 26 the anniversary of the 
Americans With Disabilities Act, and we have taken many steps backward 
as a Nation in guaranteeing the civil rights of all Americans with 
disabilities. Clearly that means we need to guarantee nothing special 
for people with disabilities, just the same rights. Guaranteeing equal 
access regardless of ability is what we need to do in this country.
  This amendment seeks to do that; but I might add, so does the 
underlying bill. I hope that Members listening to this debate do not 
come away with the understanding that it is because of amendments like 
this that we are accomplishing it. The underlying bill, if people were 
to see it and really look at it, does so much to offer independence and 
hope to people who previous to this bill were denied many opportunities 
because of previous budgetary priorities that shut people out in this 
country.
  So I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for 
producing a good bill that goes along the same lines as this amendment 
by opening up the doors of opportunity to all Americans.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

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

       Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Page 58, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,000,000)''.

  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, if my ears did not deceive me, I 
think I heard the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee either observe or lament that with one exception, every 
amendment offered on this bill, its purpose was to increase spending. 
If that was a lamentation, I certainly share his angst. Not wanting to 
disappoint, I am coming to the floor with several amendments that are 
designed to do just the opposite, spend

[[Page 19545]]

less of the people's money to try to save hardworking American 
taxpayers more, let them keep more of what they earned.
  Now, Madam Chairman, this is a modest amendment, but it represents a 
very, very important principle. Today, right now, the Federal 
Government is spending $23,289 per family. This is the highest level 
spent in real inflation-adjusted terms since World War II.
  Earlier this year, the Democrat budget resolution included the 
largest single tax increase in American history which when fully put in 
place would put $3,000, an average of $3,000, additional tax burden on 
the average American family. And now even if Congress were for some 
reason to just disband today and add no new government, just the 
government programs we have on automatic pilot threaten to double taxes 
on the next generation. So we need to find every opportunity that we 
can today to save the poor beleaguered taxpayer even more money.
  Madam Chairman, I do not myself know exactly how many Federal 
programs exist. I have seen one estimate, I believe, from the Heritage 
Foundation that we have over 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 
different agencies. I defy any man, woman or child to tell me what each 
and every one of them does. Some of them I am sure do good things; but 
the question is given the fiscal challenges that we face, are they 
truly a priority.
  Madam Chairman, some may have even completed their mission. And some, 
perhaps like the amendment that I am offering today, are actually 
duplicative. This is a modest amendment that would save the American 
taxpayer $8 million. In this particular program, ostensibly, funding is 
used for training and technical assistance in developing and managing 
water facilities. But the Office of Management and Budget has 
recommended that this particular program be eliminated, stating that 
``the program is duplicative of other Federal entities such as the 
Bureau of Reclamation's rural water program which is responsible for 
water and wastewater treatment facilities.'' That is from the Office of 
Management and Budget.
  So we ought to make sure that we are not simply engaging in 
legislation by symbolism. I know every single program has a lofty-
sounding name to help some constituency that is important to us. But we 
have to look beyond that and see if it is actually achieving its 
purpose, are there other programs that are also achieving its purpose 
as well. And according to the Office of Management and Budget, this 
program is duplicative of other programs.
  So we have to ask ourselves a very important question. In light of 
the fact that the Federal Government has never ever spent since World 
War II so much money of the American family, $23,289, given that the 
Democrat budget resolution includes the single largest tax increase in 
history, given that although the national deficit has come down, not 
due to any spending discipline but due to the fact that we are awash in 
tax revenues, we still have a tax deficit. So it is a simple question: 
Do we want to fund a program that the administration considers 
duplicative given that if we don't, either the funds are coming from 
the Social Security trust fund, and many of my colleagues have pledged 
not to do that, if it is not coming from that, it is going to add to 
this $3,000-per-American-family tax burden, or more debt will be passed 
on to our children.
  I believe we ought to use this opportunity to eliminate one 
duplicative Federal program and return $8 million to the American 
taxpayer.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I was going to yield a minute of my time to 
the gentleman from Texas to explain his amendment. I appreciate his 
speech, and I thought the gentleman's speech was a thoughtful speech. 
He has come to the floor consistently on every appropriations bill in 
an effort to save money, but I would like to yield to the gentleman 
just so he can tell us what his amendment does in this bill. If the 
gentleman would be kind enough to explain that to us, we would 
appreciate it over here on the majority.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If I was not clear, this amendment would save the American taxpayer 
$8 million. It would remove a duplicative program, according to OMB, 
the Rural Community Facilities Program. I don't need a minute to 
explain what the amendment does. That is it. I certainly apologize to 
my colleague if I was unclear as to the purpose of the amendment or how 
it operates.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I appreciate the gentleman and his analysis.
  At least as I read page 58, line 21, the gentleman seeks to reduce by 
$8 million section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 
and section 505 of the Family Support Act of 1988. That reduction the 
committee fundamentally opposes in part because of Refugee Education 
Assistance Act of 1980 and the Family Support Act of 1988 are reputable 
programs that have provided an enormous benefit to the American 
taxpayer. That is precisely why it is in the bill. And it is 
specifically in the section of the bill ``Children and Families 
Services Programs'' because of its enormous benefit to the American 
taxpayer.
  I appreciate the gentleman's effort at fiscal accountability and 
fiscal responsibility, and the gentleman has clearly led a crusade 
through every single one of these appropriations bills, but I would 
encourage Members to oppose the Hensarling amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I tell the gentleman, in my State, I 
will give you a perfect example of where this would make a difference.
  In a rural part of my State we had a contamination of our well water, 
and it was a contamination because of the MTBE, the chemical that goes 
into gasoline. I might add under the Republican majority, you all 
indemnified the oil and gas industry from lawsuits so that my community 
can't get the justice it deserves so it can clean up its wastewater and 
make due reparation to my constituents. What they had to do is they had 
to go down to the local high school to take showers. They had to attach 
a pump through the fire department to the next-door community.
  Now under this section of the bill, this is a public health hazard. 
You know why, because even at home when they turn on the water, they 
were getting lesions on their skin because the shower water was giving 
them lesions. Even when they turned on the steam, the children were 
breathing in the steam and were getting asthma attacks. Now if you are 
wondering what the nexus is, this is what the nexus is between your 
amendment and health and why infrastructure makes an enormous 
difference in providing clean, safe drinking water to rural 
communities.
  Now I don't come from a very rural State so you might think that it 
is kind of interesting that I would come up and speak on behalf of 
this. I would think that your State would probably benefit a lot more 
from this. Your constituents must be wondering about you offering an 
amendment against a section that would benefit your State more than it 
does mine. Frankly, this is an important program.
  If anything in this country, we haven't invested enough in 
infrastructure. Mr. Jackson, I'm sure, has talked to his mayors and 
local community leaders, and they have told him that their 
infrastructure is falling apart. I would just commend all of us to say 
that if we have to do anything, we have to do more in the way of 
infrastructure, not less.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I want to make sure, and 
I appreciate the gentleman from Rhode Island's thoughts on the subject, 
but I want to make sure that this amendment is going to the heart of 
Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 and Family Support Act of 
1988.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page 19546]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hensarling 
amendment. I love a good debate. It is a great privilege for me to be 
able to come to the floor at a time when Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Jackson 
are here. I find them to be two of the most forceful and effective 
advocates of their view in the Congress in the majority, and so I 
welcome this opportunity to join in the debate. And I thank the 
gentleman from Texas who is consistently the strongest advocate for 
fiscal discipline and reform in the House of Representatives.
  I will leave aside for the moment the whole question of which party 
forced the requirement of MTBE to be added to gasoline and created the 
regulatory challenges that the gentleman refers to, and just get to the 
larger question here.
  Madam Chairman, we have an $8 trillion national debt. This is an 
amendment to cut $8 million. And it is being forcefully opposed. I 
think for anyone who would be looking on the people's House today, that 
is a rather dramatic comparison. Let me repeat that again. The 
Hensarling amendment, facing the stark reality of $8 trillion in 
national debt, comes to the floor with an idea to ask the Federal 
Government to do without spending $8 million.
  The new majority, and I congratulate them again on securing the 
majority in the Congress, the American people spoke. But I do remember 
the new majority pledged no new deficit spending. I remember promises 
by this new majority in last year's campaign season that we would pay 
as we go in the Federal budget. If there was to be spending increases, 
they would be offset by cuts in other areas.
  Yet this legislation, the bill is $7 billion over the 2007 request, 
$10.2 billion over the President's request, and it follows seven other 
pieces of legislation all of which have increased spending. And some of 
which, Madam Chairman, I have supported, but not all.
  And it does seem to me as I walked here to this floor, I passed one 
sign after another in front of the offices of some of my most 
distinguished Democrat colleagues that bear the number $8 trillion writ 
large. If we are to be concerned about $8 trillion, will we not support 
an effort to cut $8 million?

                              {time}  1115

  That's the choice here today and whether the gentleman from Illinois, 
who I deeply respect, considers that this $8 million to be an enormous 
benefit, might there not be States and local governments that could 
make up for that, with the recognition that we are creating a burden 
for future generations of Americans that we ought not to create?
  So I support the Hensarling amendment. It is the least we can do to 
take a step backwards.
  I want to associate myself with the distinguished chairman of this 
committee who rose earlier to say, and I'm quoting now, that he was 
tired of defending administrative accounts with amendments by people 
who were coming to ask for more spending in other areas.
  It is greatly to the credit of the gentleman from Texas that he is 
coming to this floor simply asking that we not spend this money. 
There's no other amendment or no other spending request that he's 
making in this regard, and it's what the American people ask us to do.
  In fact, I would close, Madam Chairman, simply by saying I think the 
American people are tired of the national debt. I think they're tired 
of the sea of red ink. I think they were tired of it when my party had 
control of the place, and as the gentlewoman knows, I was one of the 
strongest opponents of wasteful government spending when my own party 
was in charge.
  And so I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know the 
gentleman from Texas and myself and other colleagues, we come to this 
floor with sincerity of purpose and with consistency that we think 
government ought to live within its means and pay its bills, and we 
think we ought to balance budgets. And the Hensarling amendment simply 
asks that we might cut $8 million as a modest response to $8 trillion 
in national debt.
  And I challenge my colleagues, in the spirit of goodwill, let's make 
this statement, let's start in the direction of fiscal discipline and 
reform or, for heaven's sake, Madam Chairman, and I say with a smile, 
let's take the signs down from the hallways. Let's stop pretending that 
we worry about the national debt if we cannot come together as a 
Congress and as a nation and accept an $8 million cut to deal with an 
$8 trillion national debt.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Drone on, drone on, O ship of State. That's what I'm 
tempted to recite when I hear these repetitious dronings on bill after 
bill after bill.
  Let me simply say, I think it is legitimate for individual Members of 
this body to offer amendments in order to illustrate their concern 
about a larger question. I've done that many times myself in this 
institution.
  But I think that after 3 weeks of hearing the same point made again 
and again, we understand that these gentlemen believe that we are 
putting too much money into education and health care and science and 
other areas that we regard as crucial investments, and that's a 
perfectly legitimate position to have. But please spare me the 
sanctimony, spare me the nonsense that somehow these amendments will 
contribute in any meaningful way to significant deficit reduction.
  Let me simply point out, if people were interested in significant 
deficit reduction, they would not be supporting an Iraqi war which has 
already spent over $400 billion and which we'll spend another 140 
billion bucks by the time we pass the President's supplemental. They 
would not be insisting that we provide $57 billion in tax cuts to 
people making a million bucks a year. No, they don't argue about those 
two things.
  What do they do? They come to the floor and squawk about an $8 
million program to help the poorest rural communities in this country 
get basic services like sewer and water. I represent many towns in my 
District with populations of less than a thousand people. At least half 
the households in many of those towns are headed either by senior 
citizens or a woman with a low income, and that means that when they 
get hit with the DNR order to clean up their water or clean up their 
sewer, they do not have the tax base to proceed, and they don't have 
technical expertise even to know how to begin going about it.
  We've got a $385 billion backlog in this country of sewer and water 
needs, and yet we're hearing these complaints about this tiny little 
program and what terrible abuse it is for the taxpayer.
  Imagine a congressional committee trying to do something to help poor 
communities deal with their sewer and water problems. Isn't that awful? 
Isn't that wasteful? Good God, Almighty, we ought to be putting that $8 
million into the pockets of millionaires in additional tax cuts, right? 
At least that's what their record shows they believe. Nonsense.
  I'm getting up once on this amendment, but I don't intend to 
continually get up in what is a filibuster by amendment. So I wanted to 
get that off my chest once, and then I'm just going to sit back and let 
people drone on, drone on, O ship of State, and occasionally I might 
even listen.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 19547]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 42 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Page 58, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''

  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I listened intently to the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, as I do whenever he is on the 
floor. Apparently he does not like amendments that increase spending in 
this bill, and apparently he doesn't like amendments that decrease the 
spending in the bill. So apparently he doesn't like amendments. So that 
much is clear.
  Second of all, Madam Chairman, when I come down to the floor in 
efforts to try to save taxpayers money, let them keep more money for 
their education programs, their health care programs, their energy 
programs, sometimes we're told that, well, this is so draconian, you 
know, to try to save this much money. And then other times we're told, 
well, this is just a piddling little amount.
  Well, I'm reminded first of a famous quote from the late Senator 
Everett Dirksen, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're 
talking about real money. I'm even talking about more modest amounts 
today.
  But there's a fundamental principle involved here, and the 
fundamental principle is that we have a Federal budget growing way 
beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. Make no mistake 
about it, Madam Chairman, government will be paid for. It's either 
going to be paid for in the short term by continuing to raid the Social 
Security Trust Fund, which is what's going to happen if this particular 
amendment fails. It will be funded by the single largest tax increase 
in American history which my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
the Democrat majority, has done in their budget, or perhaps it may even 
be funded by sending more debt to our children and grandchildren.
  I think we should look for every opportunity. Given the challenges 
that we face, the Comptroller General of America has said we are on the 
verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the 
next generation with a lower standard of living. Never happened before 
in the history of America.
  So, Madam Chairman, I make no apologies for, to use the distinguished 
chairman's term, droning on about what fiscal perils lay in wait for 
future generations if we don't start now. And then, again, it's a 
little bit like Goldilocks and the three bears. Either the porridge is 
too hot or the porridge is too cold. When is the porridge just right to 
try to save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget?
  So when we have the Office of Management and Budget single out a 
number of different programs, and I certainly think that their 
expertise in this area is great, to single out certain programs that, 
one, have outlived their usefulness; number two, are not meeting their 
objective; or number three, are duplicative, I think amendments are in 
order for the people's House to save the people money.
  We have to quit engaging again in the fact of legislation by 
symbolism. It has a lofty name or it has a lofty purpose, well, let's 
look at what's actually happening to the money.
  So this is a modest amendment, and I admit it's modest. I've tried to 
save big chunks of money and haven't been terribly successful there, 
and so we're going to attempt to save little chunks of money and 
perhaps set a precedent here.
  So this amendment is designed to save the American taxpayer $5 
million by hopefully zeroing out the account of a program which the 
Office of Management and Budget has said does not have performance 
standards. They do not have performance standards to assess their 
impact or are too narrowly focused to have a major benefit. They 
duplicate other Federal programs and award grants on a noncompetitive 
basis.
  Now, ostensibly this program is a job opportunities program for low-
income individuals, but I happen to know that practically every single 
one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against the 
tax relief that has created 8 million new jobs in our economy, which is 
an undeniable fact. That's truly the best job opportunity program for 
low-income individuals.
  And I know that this body recently voted against the maximum 
opportunity to create an artificial wage to deny some people their 
opportunity to get on the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
  There's a lot of ways that we can help low-income people with job 
opportunities, but one more duplicative program that awards grants on a 
noncompetitive basis is not it. Let's not raid the Social Security 
Trust Fund. Let's not be a part of the largest single tax increase in 
American history. Let's save the American people $5 million.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   promoting safe and stable families

       For carrying out section 436 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 629f), $345,000,000 and for section 437 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 629g), $89,100,000.


       payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, $5,082,000,000.
       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for the first 
     quarter of fiscal year 2009, $1,776,000,000.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under 
     section 474 of title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for the 
     last three months of the current fiscal year for 
     unanticipated costs, incurred for the current fiscal year, 
     such sums as may be necessary.

                        Administration on Aging


                        aging services programs

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3011 et seq.) and 
     section 398 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280c-
     3), $1,417,189,000.

                              {time}  1130


               Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

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

       Amendment No. 44 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Page 62, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $21,400,000)''.

  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, again we have another modest 
amendment aiming at saving the American taxpayer, in this case $21.4 
million. Again, we have a program that has a very lofty name, 
Preventive Health under the Administration of Aging. But I think that, 
again, the program needs to be put in the larger context.
  We are being asked now to provide in this particular appropriations 
bill $152 billion in discretionary funding, one of the largest bills 
that will come to the people's House. It has, I believe, a 4.8 percent 
increase over last year, when I assure you, American families who are 
being asked to pay for this did not enjoy a 4.8 percent increase.
  We, once again, have another portion of the Federal budget growing 
beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for this. So we all know 
that this is a part of a plan that will increase an additional $26 
billion for domestic programs under the budget resolution of the 
Democrat majority, on top of the $6 billion that has been added to the 
current year omnibus, on top of the $17 billion in nonwar emergency 
spending they have added to the Iraq war supplemental.
  Again, I recall the words of the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, referring to those of us who may drone on 
about attempting to save the Federal taxpayer money, but there are also 
those who seemingly

[[Page 19548]]

use the same old argument that government knows how to spend money 
better than the American family.
  Somehow, if we take money away from American families, that's an 
investment. But if they somehow keep it, well, that's waste, or somehow 
that's going to bring down the government to its knees. I just don't 
buy that argument. Somehow we are supposed to believe in the roughly 
10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies, growing 
at roughly twice the rate of inflation, growing beyond the ability of 
the family budget to pay for it, that somehow, somehow, every single 
penny of Federal expenditures is sacrosanct. Yet there is nothing 
sacrosanct about the money we take away from the American people to pay 
for that.
  Now, the funds in this particular program are awarded to States and 
territories that supposedly educate older Americans about the 
importance of healthy lifestyles, a very noble purpose. But I would 
note with the exception of, I think, two, maybe three States, every 
single one of them is running a surplus.
  We are granting money to 95, 98 percent of the States that are 
running the surplus, while the Federal Government continues to run a 
deficit. Although that deficit is coming down because we are awash in 
tax revenues, it certainly hasn't been from any spending disciplines. 
The bottom line is we are running a deficit, and we are handing out 
money to States that are running surpluses.
  Again, this is a program that the Office of Management and Budget 
says should not be funded: ``It is duplicative of services that States 
can provide to the Administration on Aging's community-based supportive 
services program.''
  I have heard nobody address or take the opposite viewpoint of OMB and 
say the program is duplicative. So maybe they approve of duplication. 
If they think that OMB has got it wrong, I would be interested in 
hearing that particular argument or that particular debate.
  Furthermore, OMB says that AOA and visions integrating, prevention is 
an underlying principle in its core programs and that is better than 
the current mechanism of providing a small funding stream of unfocused 
seed money through the Preventive Health Services Program. Again, I 
feel we have too much legislation by symbolism.
  We should never forget, when we are talking about the lofty purposes, 
that this will provide in vital investments and health care. Let's 
remember the vital investments in health care that the American people 
have. I mean, they are going to have to pay for this.
  Again, I often hear from my constituents, like Joyce in Tennessee 
Colony, Texas, says, ``Please do what you can to stop the wasteful 
spending. I am retired and disabled. I am raising my three 
grandchildren and now one great grandchild. I sometimes can't afford my 
own medicine.''
  So here we have a choice. We can take money away from Joyce in 
Tennessee Colony, take money away from her health care program, to 
engage in this particular program which OMB says is duplicative.
  I have heard from David in the city of Garland.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I think this is a perfect, perfect 
example of a gentleman offering an amendment where he knows the cost of 
something but the value of nothing.
  If he were to visit any congregate meal site in his district or were 
to visit any of the Meals-on-Wheels programs in this country and was 
able to see what a difference those programs make in people's lives, he 
would understand that it was these kinds of programs that saved the 
taxpayer money.
  I guess, by this amendment, he is saying what a waste it is for us to 
pay for someone's illness. Let's put off paying for their illness until 
they get really sick. Then they have got to get hospitalized. Then 
let's pay for it through Medicare.
  Frankly, the former Speaker Newt Gingrich, every modern health care 
magazine, Republican Presidential contender Tommy Thompson, former HHS 
director, every leader and study in health care knows we ought to be 
going in the opposite direction. It's all about health. In case anybody 
has not been looking, our health care system is an acute care system. 
It's a sick care system. We need to be going preventive care. We need 
to be going health care. We need to be going chronic care management.
  What in the world are we thinking by considering that we are going to 
actually go back to the dark days where we are going to actually spend 
more money on the back door to wait until people get sick as opposed to 
trying to prevent people from coming in and getting sick in the first 
place. I find this amendment absolutely mind boggling that it would 
even be offered as an excuse for saving money.
  Quite frankly, it will end up costing the taxpayer money. Tragically, 
more than costing us money, it will cost us lives. It will cost us 
lives, and it will cost us misery amongst those senior citizens who are 
going to have to suffer the consequences of the cutbacks that this 
amendment will propose. I think that's a very unfortunate thing.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, as I understand Mr. Hensarling's amendment, he goes 
at the heart of the Administration on Aging, section 204 of the report, 
and these programs, including supportive service centers, preventive 
health, are protection for vulnerable and older Americans that are at 
the heart of the bill. It's clear to me that according to the Health 
and Human Services budget in brief that consumer empowerment, healthy 
lifestyles, community living incentives, are a critical part of taking 
care of families and their caregivers. And I just don't know where the 
gentleman arrives at the numbers that he seeks to cut in the bill.
  The committee learned through exhaustive testimony from the Office of 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services the importance of funding 
this program. As the gentleman, Mr. Hensarling knows, the President has 
sought to fund the program, and the committee has worked in a 
Republican and Democrat bipartisan way, sought to increase the program, 
and so we are going to stick with this number.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding me the 
time. I am encouraging members of the committee to oppose the 
Hensarling amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time.
  I am pleased that in other bills that we are going to be taking up 
this year, we are going to be offering, the Democrats, medical home 
legislation that will allow us to invest in preventive medicine. 
Because we, as Democrats, believe we need to not rearrange the deck 
chairs on this Titanic of our health care system.
  We need to reinvent our health care system and invest in health care, 
which is broken in this country, and start investing in prevention and 
not go down this road that has gotten us in so much trouble to begin 
with, and that is try to take care of the problem after it's already 
broken. Let's take care of people first and keep them out of the 
hospital.
  Unfortunately, this amendment goes a great deal of distance in the 
wrong direction, not the right direction.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Departmental Management


                        office of the secretary

                    general departmental management

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general 
     departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and 
     for carrying out titles III, XVII, XX, and XXI of the Public 
     Health Service Act, the United

[[Page 19549]]

     States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act, and research 
     studies under section 1110 of the Social Security Act, 
     $363,224,000, together with $5,851,000 to be transferred and 
     expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 
     and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, 
     and $46,756,000 from the amounts available under section 241 
     of the Public Health Service Act to carry out national health 
     or human services research and evaluation activities: 
     Provided, That of the funds made available under this heading 
     for carrying out title XX of the Public Health Service Act, 
     $13,120,000 shall be for activities specified under section 
     2003(b)(2), all of which shall be for prevention service 
     demonstration grants under section 510(b)(2) of title V of 
     the Social Security Act without application of the limitation 
     of section 2010(c) of such title XX: Provided further, That 
     of this amount, $51,891,000 shall be for minority AIDS 
     prevention and treatment activities; and $5,941,000 shall be 
     to assist Afghanistan in the development of maternal and 
     child health clinics, consistent with section 103(a)(4)(H) of 
     the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Ferguson

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ferguson:
       Page 63, line 4, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Ferguson-Langevin amendment that will set aside $10 million for 
implementation and to fund the Lifespan Respite Care Act.
  I know the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, will be 
speaking on this amendment as well. I really want to praise him and 
thank him for his great leadership on this issue over the years. He and 
I have worked together as friends and partners on this issue in 
particular. I have great respect and admiration for the work that he 
has done on this issue.
  Together, we have worked to pass the Lifespan Respite Care Act. It 
was unanimously approved by this Chamber and the Senate last Congress. 
It deserves the funding necessary to launch this critically important 
program. Funding the Lifespan Respite Care Act will, for the first 
time, establish a national policy to help our Nation's 50 million 
family caregivers who provide daily care for their loved ones with 
disabilities or chronic conditions or illnesses.
  This program allows families to care in home for their loved ones 
instead of an institutionalized setting. In-home family caregivers 
provide minute-by-minute special assistance to their loved ones due to 
disability or critical illness or chronic condition.
  Family caregivers are remarkable people. They make extraordinary 
sacrifices to help those who they love so dearly.
  I saw an example of this firsthand in my own family. Ten years ago my 
mom was diagnosed with cancer. For 6 years I got to watch my dad as he 
cared for my mom through this very difficult struggle with cancer. 
Three years ago yesterday she lost that battle with cancer, but it was 
a great example to our family and so many others that we know of a 
great example of a family caregiver who made extraordinary sacrifices. 
There are some 50 million people just like my dad who provide care for 
a loved one in their own family.
  These are folks who may not be blessed with a support structure that 
we had in our family. We had my siblings and me and others in our 
family who were able to give my dad a break when he needed a break from 
that family caregiving. There are many people in our country who are 
not fortunate enough to have that support structure around them. They 
are desperately in need of a break from time to time.
  While the benefits that come from in-home care can be enormous, for 
caregivers and for that loved one who is ill, the cost for the family 
caregiver, from emotional to financial, can really be overwhelming. 
Lifespan Respite Care will provide much-needed breaks for caregivers 
who are providing intense and exhaustive care 24 hours a day. An 
occasional break can literally be a lifesaver.
  I had a conversation with a constituent from my district, Ms. Pinter, 
who told me that caring for her special-needs child can be a very 
joyful but also can be a very challenging experience. You know what? 
She is exactly right.
  Two-thirds of caregivers report physical or mental health care 
problems linked to their own caregiving. Recent studies have found that 
family caregivers suffer poor health or even higher mortality rates 
than nonfamily caregivers. Currently our Nation lacks a coordinated 
approach between different levels of government or advocacy groups to 
aid those who are in need of respite care.
  Respite care is in short supply or doesn't exist at all in some areas 
of our country. This legislation and these funds would change that.
  Funding the Lifespan Respite Care Act would improve coordination and 
access for respite care to recruit and train respite care providers, 
would aid family caregivers regardless of age or disability or their 
family situation, help them to find and pay for respite services. 
Through competitive grants, States would get funding to make quality 
respite care available and accessible regardless of age or disability 
or family situation.
  Respite care improves the health and the well-being of caregivers and 
reduces the risk of abuse or neglect. Importantly, it also delays or 
even avoids more costly hospitalizations or placements in nursing homes 
or in foster care.
  I want to thank all of the family caregivers in our Nation who 
provide tireless care for their loved ones, and I also want to extend 
my thanks to the numerous groups and organizations around this country 
in their exhaustive effort to establish this Lifespan Respite Care 
program. Providing relief to our Nation's family caregivers is long 
overdue.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Once again, I am 
pleased and honored to have worked with the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Langevin) on this important legislation.

                              {time}  1145

  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support 
of the Ferguson-Langevin amendment. Last year, I was so pleased to work 
closely with Mr. Ferguson to ensure the passage of the Lifespan Respite 
Care Act, which will offer relief to so many family caregivers across 
the country.
  I had the privilege of traveling with Mr. Ferguson to Iraq going back 
a couple of years now, and I know his personal commitment to this 
issue. He shared the story with me about his mom, and so I know, as in 
my case as well as with Mr. Ferguson, this is certainly a very personal 
issue that we have personal knowledge about and we care passionately 
about. So I am pleased to join him today and in the effort to direct 
funding now for this important program. As I mentioned, I know 
firsthand what a difference a dedicated caregiver can make in the life 
of a person with a disability or chronic condition.
  Family caregiving is an essential yet often overlooked aspect of our 
Nation's health care system. The ability to live at home and remain a 
part of one's community can make a tremendous difference in a person 
achieving independence, recovery, or treatment. And whether they are 
caring for a child with a behavioral disorder or a parent with ALS or a 
spouse with multiple sclerosis, we all know someone who is a family 
caregiver. They live in all of our communities and they are often 
silent heroes, ensuring family stability and helping those who struggle 
with disease or disability to avoid more costly out-of-home placements.
  We were so excited last year when this Congress really took a bold 
initiative in enacting the Lifespan Respite Care Act, and it gave hope 
to so many families across America. Today, this amendment that we are 
proposing directs $10 million toward the Lifespan

[[Page 19550]]

Respite Care Act, which would authorize grants to make quality respite 
care available and accessible to family caregivers regardless of age or 
disability. So it is exciting if we can actually put now the funding 
into the Lifespan Respite Care Act that we so desperately need to help 
America's families who are providing this type of care in the home.
  I urge all of my colleagues who are so supportive of the passage of 
this bill to vote in favor of the Ferguson-Langevin amendment.
  I also want to commend my colleague Mr. Ferguson, the gentleman from 
New Jersey, for his passion and dedication on this issue. It has truly 
been a team effort. And, again, I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, again, I feel required to make the same 
comments that I made on a previous amendment that was offered about 
one-half hour ago.
  This amendment seeks to do a very worthy thing: It seeks to increase 
support for respite care. God knows, having watched my mother-in-law 
for 7 years, having watched my father-in-law take care of her every 
day, God knows that anyone who has ever seen something like that 
understands that we need a lot more respite care.
  But having said that, I want again to use this amendment to 
illustrate what is happening on this bill, because here is what the 
amendment says:
  Page 63, line 4: After the first dollar amount insert, reduce by $20 
million, increase by $20 million.
  Now, what the amendment really does is simply to serve as a vehicle 
by which these two worthy Members can raise the issue that there is not 
enough money in this bill for respite care. And you know what? There 
isn't. And there isn't enough money in this bill for CDC; there isn't 
enough money in this bill for NIH; there isn't enough money in this 
bill for education; there isn't enough money in this bill for Pell 
Grants; there is not enough money in this bill to sufficiently reduce 
the Social Security backlog; there is not enough money in this bill to 
keep all the Social Security offices open that are closing around the 
country. And, yet, the administration is sending out a letter telling 
Members of Congress that they ought to vote against this bill because 
there is too much money.
  Now, I don't fault the two gentlemen at all for using this device in 
order to raise their concerns; it is about the only thing they can do. 
But the fact is, as chairman of this committee, I have an obligation to 
point out to the House and to the occasional other person who might be 
listening that Members are being forced to go through these kinds of 
machinations because instead of meeting our obligations to the most 
needy people, the most vulnerable people in this society, we are 
instead squirting away billions of dollars on an Iraq war and billions 
more dollars in tax cuts for persons who make over $1 million a year.
  The day that we decide not to do that, the day that we decide that we 
are not going to spend $150 billion more in Iraq this year, the day 
that we decide that we are not going to put tax cuts for millionaires 
ahead of the needs of our disabled and ahead of the needs of our 
isolated seniors, then that is the day when amendments like this will 
be real, because then there will be sufficient room in the budget to do 
what we ought to be doing on these programs.
  Again, I will not stand in the way of this amendment because it is a 
worthy cause. But, understand, this is not a real offset; it doesn't 
add any new money to this account; and when we go to conference, we are 
going to have to jettison much of what is adopted on the floor because, 
like this amendment, in reality, because of budget constraints, it 
ain't real.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                office of medicare hearings and appeals

       For expenses necessary for administrative law judges 
     responsible for hearing cases under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (and related provisions of title XI of such 
     Act), $65,000,000, to be transferred in appropriate part from 
     the Federal Hospital Insurance and the Federal Supplementary 
     Medical Insurance Trust Funds.


  office of the national coordinator for health information technology

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the National 
     Coordinator for Health Information Technology, including 
     grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for the 
     development and advancement of an interoperable national 
     health information technology infrastructure, $13,302,000: 
     Provided, That in addition to amounts provided herein, 
     $48,000,000 shall be available from amounts available under 
     section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry out 
     health information technology network development.


                      office of inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector 
     General, including the hire of passenger motor vehicles for 
     investigations, in carrying out the provisions of the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978, $44,687,000: Provided, That of 
     such amount, necessary sums are available for providing 
     protective services to the Secretary and investigating non-
     payment of child support cases for which non-payment is a 
     Federal offense under section 228 of title 18, United States 
     Code.


                        office for civil rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, 
     $33,748,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000 to be 
     transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act from the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical 
     Insurance Trust Fund.


     retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned officers

       For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health 
     Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, for 
     payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection 
     Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan, for medical care of 
     dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents' 
     Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. chapter 55), such amounts as may 
     be required during the current fiscal year.


            public health and social services emergency fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to support activities related to 
     countering potential biological, disease, nuclear, 
     radiological and chemical threats to civilian populations, 
     and for other public health emergencies, $757,291,000, of 
     which not to exceed $22,363,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, is to pay the costs described in section 
     319F-2(c)(7)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247d-6b(c)(7)(B)).
       For expenses necessary to prepare for and respond to an 
     influenza pandemic, $948,091,000, of which $870,000,000 shall 
     be available until expended, for activities including the 
     development and purchase of vaccine, antivirals, necessary 
     medical supplies, diagnostics, and other surveillance tools: 
     Provided, That products purchased with these funds may, at 
     the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     be deposited in the Strategic National Stockpile: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding section 496(b) of the Public 
     Health Service Act, funds may be used for the construction or 
     renovation of privately owned facilities for the production 
     of pandemic vaccine and other biologicals, where the 
     Secretary finds such a contract necessary to secure 
     sufficient supplies of such vaccines or biologicals: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated herein may be transferred to 
     other appropriation accounts of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, as determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate, to be used for the purposes specified in this 
     sentence.


                  covered countermeasure process fund

       For carrying out section 319F-4 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6e) to compensate individuals for 
     injuries caused by H5N1 vaccine, in accordance with the 
     declaration regarding avian influenza viruses issued by the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services on January 26, 2007, 
     pursuant to section 319F-3(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-
     6d(b)), $5,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                           General Provisions

       Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be 
     available for not to exceed $50,000 for

[[Page 19551]]

     official reception and representation expenses when 
     specifically approved by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services.
       Sec. 202. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     make available through assignment not more than 60 employees 
     of the Public Health Service to assist in child survival 
     activities and to work in AIDS programs through and with 
     funds provided by the United States Agency for International 
     Development, the United Nations International Children's 
     Emergency Fund, or the World Health Organization.
       Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for 
     the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare 
     Research and Quality, and the Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services Administration shall be used to pay the 
     salary of an individual, through a grant or other extramural 
     mechanism, at a rate in excess of Executive Level I.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     Head Start shall be used to pay the compensation of an 
     individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an 
     indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.
       Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service 
     Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act, 
     or for other taps and assessments made by any office located 
     in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the 
     preparation and submission of a report by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate detailing the 
     planned uses of such funds.
       Sec. 206. Notwithstanding section 241(a) of the Public 
     Health Service Act, such portion as the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall determine, but not more than 2.4 
     percent, of any amounts appropriated for programs authorized 
     under such Act shall be made available for the evaluation 
     (directly, or by grants or contracts) of the implementation 
     and effectiveness of such programs.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 207. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.)) which are 
     appropriated for the current fiscal year for the Department 
     of Health and Human Services in this Act may be transferred 
     between appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be 
     increased by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: 
     Provided, That an appropriation may be increased by up to an 
     additional 2 percent subject to approval by the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate: Provided further, That the transfer authority granted 
     by this section shall be available only to meet unanticipated 
     needs and shall not be used to create any new program or to 
     fund any project or activity for which no funds are provided 
     in this Act: Provided further, That the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     are notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 208. The Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS 
     Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes and 
     centers from the total amounts identified by these two 
     Directors as funding for research pertaining to the human 
     immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     are promptly notified of the transfer.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 209. Of the amounts made available in this Act for the 
     National Institutes of Health, the amount for research 
     related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly 
     determined by the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health and the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, shall 
     be made available to the ``Office of AIDS Research'' account. 
     The Director of the Office of AIDS Research shall transfer 
     from such account amounts necessary to carry out section 
     2353(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300cc-
     40b(d)(3)).
       Sec. 210. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     made available to any entity under title X of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) unless the 
     applicant for the award certifies to the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services that it encourages family participation in 
     the decision of minors to seek family planning services and 
     that it provides counseling to minors on how to resist 
     attempts to coerce minors into engaging in sexual activities.
       Sec. 211. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     provider of services under title X of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) shall be exempt from any 
     State law requiring notification or the reporting of child 
     abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest.
       Sec. 212. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     (including funds appropriated to any trust fund) may be used 
     to carry out the Medicare Advantage program if the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services denies participation in such 
     program to an otherwise eligible entity (including a Provider 
     Sponsored Organization) because the entity informs the 
     Secretary that it will not provide, pay for, provide coverage 
     of, or provide referrals for abortions: Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall make appropriate prospective adjustments to 
     the capitation payment to such an entity (based on an 
     actuarially sound estimate of the expected costs of providing 
     the service to such entity's enrollees): Provided further, 
     That nothing in this section shall be construed to change the 
     Medicare program's coverage for such services and a Medicare 
     Advantage organization described in this section shall be 
     responsible for informing enrollees where to obtain 
     information about all Medicare covered services.
       Sec. 213. (a) Except as provided by subsection (e) none of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to withhold 
     substance abuse funding from a State pursuant to section 1926 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-26) if such 
     State certifies to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     by May 1, 2008, that the State will commit additional State 
     funds, in accordance with subsection (b), to ensure 
     compliance with State laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco 
     products to individuals under 18 years of age.
       (b) The amount of funds to be committed by a State under 
     subsection (a) shall be equal to 1 percent of such State's 
     substance abuse block grant allocation for each percentage 
     point by which the State misses the retailer compliance rate 
     goal established by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services under section 1926 of such Act.
       (c) The State is to maintain State expenditures in fiscal 
     year 2008 for tobacco prevention programs and for compliance 
     activities at a level that is not less than the level of such 
     expenditures maintained by the State for fiscal year 2007, 
     and adding to that level the additional funds for tobacco 
     compliance activities required under subsection (a). The 
     State is to submit a report to the Secretary on all fiscal 
     year 2007 State expenditures and all fiscal year 2008 
     obligations for tobacco prevention and compliance activities 
     by program activity by July 31, 2008.
       (d) The Secretary shall exercise discretion in enforcing 
     the timing of the State obligation of the additional funds 
     required by the certification described in subsection (a) as 
     late as July 31, 2008.
       (e) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used 
     to withhold substance abuse funding pursuant to section 1926 
     of the Public Health Service Act from a territory that 
     receives less than $1,000,000.
       Sec. 214. In order for the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention to carry out international health activities, 
     including HIV/AIDS and other infectious disease, chronic and 
     environmental disease, and other health activities abroad 
     during fiscal year 2008:
       (1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Secretary of HHS'') may exercise 
     authority equivalent to that available to the Secretary of 
     State in section 2(c) of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2669(c)). The Secretary of 
     HHS shall consult with the Secretary of State and relevant 
     Chief of Mission to ensure that the authority provided in 
     this section is exercised in a manner consistent with section 
     207 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927) and 
     other applicable statutes administered by the Department of 
     State.
       (2) The Secretary of HHS is authorized to provide such 
     funds by advance or reimbursement to the Secretary of State 
     as may be necessary to pay the costs of acquisition, lease, 
     alteration, renovation, and management of facilities outside 
     of the United States for the use of the Department of Health 
     and Human Services. The Department of State shall cooperate 
     fully with the Secretary of HHS to ensure that the Department 
     of Health and Human Services has secure, safe, functional 
     facilities that comply with applicable regulation governing 
     location, setback, and other facilities requirements and 
     serve the purposes established by this Act. The Secretary of 
     HHS is authorized, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State, through grant or cooperative agreement, to make 
     available to public or nonprofit private institutions or 
     agencies in participating foreign countries, funds to 
     acquire, lease, alter, or renovate facilities in those 
     countries as necessary to conduct programs of assistance for 
     international health activities, including activities 
     relating to HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, chronic 
     and environmental diseases, and other health activities 
     abroad.
       Sec. 215. (a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health (in this section referred to as the ``Director of 
     NIH'') may use funds available under section 402(b)(7) or 
     402(b)(12) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     282(b)(7), 282(b)(12)) to enter into transactions (other than 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, or grants) to carry out 
     research identified pursuant to such section 402(b)(7) 
     (pertaining to the Common Fund) or research and activities 
     described in such section 402(b)(12).
       (b) Peer Review.--In entering into transactions under 
     subsection (a), the Director of the NIH may utilize such peer 
     review procedures (including consultation with appropriate 
     scientific experts) as the Director determines to be 
     appropriate to obtain assessments of scientific and technical 
     merit. Such

[[Page 19552]]

     procedures shall apply to such transactions in lieu of the 
     peer review and advisory council review procedures that would 
     otherwise be required under sections 301(a)(3), 405(b)(1)(B), 
     405(b)(2), 406(a)(3)(A), 492, and 494 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241(a)(3), 284(b)(1)(B), 284(b)(2), 
     284a(a)(3)(A), 289a, and 289c).
       Sec. 216. Funds which are available for Individual Learning 
     Accounts for employees of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention (``CDC'') and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
     Disease Registry (``ATSDR)'' may be transferred to ``Disease 
     Control, Research, and Training'', to be available only for 
     Individual Learning Accounts: Provided, That such funds may 
     be used for any individual full-time equivalent employee 
     while such employee is employed either by CDC or ATSDR.
       Sec. 217. The Director of the National Institutes of Health 
     shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit 
     or have submitted for them to the National Library of 
     Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their 
     final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for 
     publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 
     months after the official date of publication: Provided, That 
     the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner 
     consistent with copyright law.
       Sec. 218. Not to exceed $35,000,000 of funds appropriated 
     by this Act to the institutes and centers of the National 
     Institutes of Health may be used for alteration, repair, or 
     improvement of facilities, as necessary for the proper and 
     efficient conduct of the activities authorized herein, at not 
     to exceed $2,500,000 per project.
       Sec. 219. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to administer to any child under 3 years of age an 
     influenza vaccine during the 2008-2009 influenza season for 
     which thimerosal is listed on the labeling as an ingredient.
        This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and 
     Human Services Appropriations Act, 2008''.

                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                    Education for the Disadvantaged

       For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA'') (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) and 
     section 418A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1070d-2), $16,016,318,000, of which $7,698,807,000 shall 
     become available on July 1, 2008, and shall remain available 
     through September 30, 2009, and of which $8,136,218,000 shall 
     become available on October 1, 2008, and shall remain 
     available through September 30, 2009 for academic year 2008-
     2009: Provided, That $6,808,971,000 shall be for basic grants 
     under section 1124 of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6333): Provided 
     further, That up to $4,000,000 of these funds shall be 
     available to the Secretary of Education on October 1, 2007, 
     to obtain annually updated local educational-agency-level 
     census poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided 
     further, That $1,365,031,000 shall be for concentration 
     grants under section 1124A of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6334): Provided 
     further, That $3,094,562,000 shall be for targeted grants 
     under section 1125 of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6335): Provided 
     further, That $3,094,260,000 shall be for education finance 
     incentive grants under section 1125A of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 
     6337): Provided further, That $9,330,000 shall be to carry 
     out sections 1501 and 1503 of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6491, 6493): 
     Provided further, That $1,634,000 shall be available for a 
     comprehensive school reform clearinghouse.

  Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
request for a recorded vote on the Ferguson amendment be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is adopted.


     Amendment No. 36 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 36 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
     Texas:
       Page 77, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $46,500,000)''.
       Page 77, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $46,500,000)''.
       Page 83, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $46,500,000)''.
       Page 83, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $46,500,000)''.
       Page 83, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $46,500,000)''.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today with 
an amendment to restore funding for the State grants portion of the 
Safe Drug and Preschool and Communities program to the fiscal year 2007 
level.
  These grants are an essential part of drug prevention and funds 
essential in effective services, including peer resistance and social 
skills training, parent education, student assistance, and education 
about emerging drug needs. This program serves 97 percent of our 
Nation's schools, and it is the only program that provides funding for 
universal prevention of all of our Nation's school-aged youth.
  The success of this program has been documented by numerous States 
and local agencies. It is extremely effective and has contributed to a 
23 percent decline in drug use among youth over the past 5 years. It is 
important to keep drug prevention as a priority. Historically, when 
funding for drug prevention is cut, drug use amongst youth surges. This 
program also provides coordinated school and community-based efforts to 
target emerging drug trends among community members.
  As a result, this program has made significant contributions to 
reducing methamphetamine and black tar heroin use among school-aged 
youth in many States throughout the country. Over the past 2 years, in 
Dallas, Texas, we have had 23 teens die from overdoses of a black tar 
heroin mixture that is called cheese with Tylenol PM, and we work with 
DEA and local merchants and all around trying to get some handle on it. 
But through the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program, 
local antidrug coalitions have partnered with schools throughout to 
hold prevention conferences in order to combat this growing epidemic.

                              {time}  1200

  They have targeted both students and parents to raise awareness 
surrounding this issue and have also held town hall meetings for 
teenagers. I have held one myself.
  Without the infrastructure provided by this program, the antidrug 
coalitions would have little if any access to these students and 
parents, and the heroin problem would have undoubtedly increased.
  This issue of emerging drug trends is not isolated. And while drug 
use among school-age children has declined, emerging drug trends 
continue to rise. We've recently seen new drugs aimed at our children, 
such as the candy-flavored meth and cocaine in many States, including 
Texas, California, Arkansas, Nevada, and Alabama. Without strong and 
effective prevention programs, these growing epidemics will have a 
devastating impact on the educational performance of students 
nationwide.
  As you're aware, drug prevention is critical to ensuring the overall 
academic success of our youth. Studies have found that lower reading 
and math scores are linked to peer substance abuse. Our Nation cannot 
afford to see alcohol and drug use or violence rise above their current 
levels.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to restore the 
funding for the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program to 
the 2007 level. $46.5 million was reduced, and, Madam Chairman, I do 
have an offset. The offset for the Safe and Drug Free Schools and 
Communities Program will come from the Reading First program.
  The Reading First program has been mired by allegations of financial 
conflicts of interest and cronyism and is currently under investigation 
by the Department of Justice. The Office of Inspector General and the 
U.S. Department of Education have found numerous legal and ethical 
violations in how Reading First has steered funds toward favored 
programs. There has been also conflicts of interest in hiring and the 
promotion of commercial reading materials. This mismanagement has 
already resulted in the program being cut by more than 60 percent of 
fiscal year 2008.
  Just a few examples of this mismanagement include the Office of 
Inspector General found that the program administrator had improperly 
promoted commercial reading programs potentially in violation of 
Federal law. The Office of Inspector General analyzed hundreds of e-
mails and concluded that the Department's program officials failed to 
maintain a controlled environment that exemplified management integrity 
and accountability.
  They found that the Madison School District in Wisconsin had 
substantial data.

[[Page 19553]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I move the adoption of this 
amendment, Madam Chairman.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. I certainly can't support further cuts to the Reading First 
program. It's been cut by $629 million. Further cutting this bill adds 
insult to injury.
  There have been problems with the program. There have been abuses. 
And if laws have been broken, the Inspector General will bring charges 
against those violators. But we shouldn't punish small children and 
their teachers for those abuses.
  We have a need in this country to teach children how to read. I don't 
think anyone could deny that.
  So Madam Chairman, for that reason, I will not support any further 
cuts to a program that teaches those kids to read. And, in fact, I 
suspect by the time we get to conference, when some of these issues are 
clarified, we'll be adding money back to this program.
  For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, let me simply say again, as I have several 
times today, I am sympathetic to the goal of the gentlewoman's 
amendment, and I appreciate the fact that she did not craft her 
amendment in a way which would go after general departmental 
administrative costs. I appreciate that concession on the part of the 
gentlewoman.
  Having said that, again, I will not personally object to the 
amendment because I understand what she is trying to do. But I 
definitely want to make clear what the gentleman from New York said, 
that there's only so far that you can cut any of these programs.
  I happen to have insisted on a very deep cut in Reading First because 
of the abuse that occurred of the taxpayer funds in that account. But 
having said that, it's our hope that, frankly, and the House needs to 
know this, it's our hope that by the time we get to conference, we will 
have worked out enough of an understanding with the administration 
about the corrections that are needed so that we don't have to take the 
deep cuts that are in the bill now. But we are not yet at that point, 
so I think people who are bringing these amendments to the floor need 
to understand that many of them will not survive, simply for the same 
reason that I said earlier, that this bill is still short of the funds 
necessary to fund deserving programs such as that pointed out by the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me say to the gentleman who 
objected, I truly understand his objection on the reading program. 
However, statistics have shown that if these young people are under the 
influence of drugs, that's where they fall. And if we could prevent 
this drug usage, it probably will let some of the ability come through.
  I know that it's difficult, but this is a very serious problem, and 
these cuts will hurt very severely in areas, primarily in school 
districts where we've had even young people having the ability to sell 
drugs to another young person. Obviously, it's coming from somewhere 
else.
  But in Dallas, we have not found a single child that has experimented 
with this ``cheese'' that has survived. And we do have parents 
involved. We'll have to discontinue this program if we don't have these 
funds. And I would just plead with you to help find these funds 
somewhere, if you have a severe objection to it coming from this area.
  But I felt that if the area's funding was not being handled 
correctly, it could be placed in a program that's going very well, that 
has influenced the decrease of 23 percent drug usage among our youth in 
the last 5 years. And I have grave concern about allowing this to go on 
without the assistance that's needed.
  As I said earlier, I have worked with the FBI. They're working with 
merchants to try to get some of the Tylenol PM and the other off the 
market in these areas. It is a serious undertaking in the area. And all 
of our law enforcement people are involved.
  But our schools cannot continue this without the funding. And that's 
the reason why I plead for understanding for this funding.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I just want to commend the lady from 
Texas for her amendment, and say that I know how many years she spent 
before coming to Congress dedicated to this issue.
  We had a hearing in her district around this issue of mental health 
and addiction and alcoholism, and we heard from the law enforcement 
community themselves in her district testify to the fact that over 70 
percent of the children in the juvenile justice system were there 
because of drugs and alcohol. And, frankly, this is a scourge on our 
schools, and we can't just wish it away by saying, just say no. Just 
say no won't work. We need to employ resources, and that's what this 
bill, this amendment, seeks to do.
  And, frankly, when you have 20 million people in this country 
addicted, and you have nearly 10 percent of those people, children, you 
have a serious problem in this country. We better get about trying to 
address it, and this amendment seeks to try to do that. And I commend 
the gentlelady for her amendment and support it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Walsh of New York

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walsh of New York:
       On page 78, line 3, before the period insert the following:
       ``Provided further, That for the purpose of determining 
     adequate yearly progress for a specific school or school 
     district, the Secretary shall include English language 
     proficiency scores for students deemed to be English language 
     learners only after such students complete their third year 
     of instruction in English as a second language''

  Mr. WALSH of New York (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, my amendment, which I intend 
to withdraw, is very simple. It would prohibit the Department of 
Education from counting test scores for English language learners 
against school districts until after the student completes 3 years of 
English language instruction.
  In our subcommittee's hearing, with Secretary Spellings, I raised 
some concerns regarding English Language Arts

[[Page 19554]]

Test that student learning to speak English as a second language were 
given this year.
  In my home State, there are over 192,000 immigrant students learning 
English, the majority of whom are in kindergarten through third grade. 
In the city of Syracuse, my hometown, we have an elementary school in 
which 43 percent of the kids are English language learners learning 
English as a second language.
  I recognize that there are benefits to monitoring ELL student 
achievement on an annual basis. But school systems should not be 
penalized for student scores after only 1 year of instruction.
  I'd like to state emphatically that we need to make sure that all of 
our kids speak and read English proficiently. It is essential to their 
ability to compete in a very competitive society and a very competitive 
world. And it is essential to the long-term viability of the American 
culture that we can all speak to each other in the same tongue.
  But I've learned other languages myself, some better than others, and 
it took me more than 1 year to be considered proficient.
  Let's not punish our schools, declaring them failing, before they've 
spent enough time to teach English thoroughly to our kids. So although 
I intend to withdraw this amendment, it would be my hope that Chairman 
Miller and Ranking Member McKeon are aware of this problem and will 
take steps to address it when we reauthorize No Child Left Behind.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. I want to underscore that I agree with my friend from New 
York and to emphasize that in parts of my own State, school districts 
face similar problems. In fact, I would bet this problem exists all 
over the country.
  Furthermore, I understand that school districts face a similar issue 
with respect to the test scores of students receiving special education 
services. So I'd like to suggest to the gentleman from New York that we 
sign a joint letter to the authorizing committee requesting that they 
address this serious issue in the No Child Left Behind reauthorization 
that they're expected to soon consider.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Reclaiming my time, I would be pleased to join 
with my chairman in signing that letter, and thank him for his support, 
knowing that as chairman of the full committee and of the subcommittee, 
his voice will be heard on the authorization committee.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I understand the gentleman intends to withdraw the 
amendment. However, I want to rise in strong support of the amendment. 
As the gentleman knows, we live on opposite sides of the country, you 
in New York and I in Arizona. But the essence of your amendment says we 
should not be judging these schools until they've had a chance to, in 
fact, educate these children in a second language. And judging them 
after only 12 months, as the gentleman clearly pointed out, is 
unrealistic and punishing the school, which means to punish all the 
students at that school and all the parents of those students and all 
of the teachers and administration officials at that school by 
evaluating those children and holding them accountable after only 12 
months is unrealistic.
  I would be happy to join in your letter, and I commend the gentleman 
for offering the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I thank the gentleman very much for his vote 
of confidence in the amendment. I would be happy to work with him on 
that communication with the authorization committee.
  Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               Impact Aid

       For carrying out programs of financial assistance to 
     federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7701 et seq.), $1,278,453,000, of which $1,140,517,000 shall 
     be for basic support payments under section 8003(b) of such 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)), $49,466,000 shall be for payments 
     for children with disabilities under section 8003(d) of such 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), $17,820,000 shall be for 
     construction under section 8007(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     7707(a)), $65,700,000 shall be for Federal property payments 
     under section 8002 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7702), and 
     $4,950,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for 
     facilities maintenance under section 8008 of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 7708): Provided, That for purposes of computing the 
     amount of a payment for an eligible local educational agency 
     under section 8003(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)) for 
     school year 2007-2008, children enrolled in a school of such 
     agency that would otherwise be eligible for payment under 
     section 8003(a)(1)(B) of such Act, but due to the deployment 
     of both parents or legal guardians, or a parent or legal 
     guardian having sole custody of such children, or due to the 
     death of a military parent or legal guardian while on active 
     duty (so long as such children reside on Federal property as 
     described in section 8003(a)(1)(B) of such Act), are no 
     longer eligible under such section, shall be considered as 
     eligible students under such section, provided such students 
     remain in average daily attendance at a school in the same 
     local educational agency they attended prior to their change 
     in eligibility status.

                      School Improvement Programs

       For carrying out school improvement activities authorized 
     by title II (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), part B of title IV (20 
     U.S.C. 7171 et seq.), part A of title V (20 U.S.C. 7201 et 
     seq.) and subparts 6 and 9 of part D of title V (20 U.S.C. 
     7253 et seq., 20 U.S.C. 7259 et seq.), part A of title VI (20 
     U.S.C. 7301 et seq.) and part B of title VI (20 U.S.C. 7341 
     et seq.), and part B of title VII (20 U.S.C. 7511 et seq.) 
     and part C of title VII (20 U.S.C. 7541 et seq.) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''); 
     the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 
     et seq.); section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance 
     Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9602); the Compact of Free Association 
     Amendments Act of 2003 (48 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.); and the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.), 
     $5,678,002,000, of which $4,059,441,000 shall become 
     available on July 1, 2008, and remain available through 
     September 30, 2009, and of which $1,435,000,000 shall become 
     available on October 1, 2008, and shall remain available 
     through September 30, 2009, for academic year 2008-2009: 
     Provided, That $411,630,000 shall be for State assessments 
     and related activities authorized under sections 6111 and 
     6112 of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7301, 7301a): Provided further, That 
     up to 100 percent of the funds available to a State 
     educational agency under part D of title II of the ESEA (20 
     U.S.C. 6751 et seq.) may be used for subgrants described in 
     section 2412(a)(2)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6762(a)(2)(B)): 
     Provided further, That $56,257,000 shall be available to 
     carry out section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance 
     Act of 2002: Provided further, That $34,376,000 shall be 
     available to carry out part D of title V of ESEA: Provided 
     further, That no funds appropriated under this heading may be 
     used to carry out section 5494 under ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7259c): 
     Provided further, That $18,001,000 shall be available to 
     carry out the Supplemental Education Grants program for the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and for the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands: Provided further, That up to 5 percent of 
     these amounts may be reserved by the Federated States of 
     Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands to 
     administer the Supplemental Education Grants programs and to 
     obtain technical assistance, oversight, and consultancy 
     services in the administration of these grants and to 
     reimburse the United States Departments of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, and Education for such services: Provided 
     further, That $3,000,000 of the funds available for the 
     Foreign Language Assistance Program shall be available for 5-
     year grants to local educational agencies that would work in 
     partnership with one or more institutions of higher education 
     to establish or expand articulated programs of study in 
     languages critical to United States national security that 
     will enable successful students to advance from elementary 
     school through college to achieve a superior level of 
     proficiency in those languages.


               amendment offered by mr. price of georgia

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

  Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Page 80, line 2, after the first dollar amount and after 
     the second dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by 
     $21,000,000)''.
       Page 82, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $21,000,000)''.
       Page 82, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $21,000,000)''.
       Page 82, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $21,000,000)''.

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, this amendment is offered in an

[[Page 19555]]

effort to try to reprioritize monies between two separate funds related 
to gaining high-quality teachers in our Nation, the Teacher Incentive 
Fund and the Teacher Quality State Grants.

                              {time}  1215

  The Teacher Incentive Fund, my amendment would increase the funding 
for that by $21 million. When the 2007 fiscal year budget was adopted 
or the appropriations bill adopted, receipt was $2 million. The request 
from the President for this year was $199 million, and the bill before 
us includes a provision for $99 million, $100 million less than the 
President's request.
  As opposed to the Teacher Quality State Grants, which received last 
year $2.8 billion, the President's request was for $2.7 billion and the 
bill before us includes a provision for $3.1 billion, $400 million more 
than the request by the Department.
  Teacher quality, Madam Chairman, is certainly the most important 
school-related factor influencing student achievement. The No Child 
Left Behind Act reflects this and one of the central tenets is putting 
a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Congress now has a 
greater opportunity to take teacher quality initiatives a step further 
by increasing funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund, a program that 
rewards highly effective teachers and rewards results.
  The Teacher Incentive Fund allows States and school districts to 
apply for Federal grants in order to develop and implement performance-
based compensation systems for both teachers and principals. With the 
Teacher Incentive Fund, educators who improve student achievement in 
the classroom are provided with financial rewards such as bonuses and 
increasing salaries. In 2006, the Teacher Incentive Fund and Congress 
provided $100 million for the new program; however, in 2007 it received 
only $2 million, and this is for a program that has shown very 
successful and rewarding results.
  There is certainly a need for the fund and to date 34 grantees have 
received money. But the Department of Education has received nearly 150 
applications. More resources would mean more districts would be able to 
establish performance-based compensation systems.
  Looking at the workforce, it is estimated that more than 2 million 
teachers will need to be hired over the next decade. Research has shown 
that performance pay can be effective at recruiting and retaining 
highly qualified teachers. So the Teacher Incentive Fund will encourage 
a talented pool of individuals to go into the field of teaching.
  Again, this is a reprioritization, a movement of $21 million from the 
Teacher Quality State Grants, which is slated to receive $3.1 billion 
to the Teacher Incentive Fund, which would then receive $120 million. 
By doing so, this money can be directly given to local districts to 
create compensation systems and therefore recruit and reward 
outstanding teachers. Nothing wrong with rewarding the best and 
brightest when it comes to educating our children.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I rise to support the 
gentleman from Georgia in his amendment. And the overall focus of his 
amendment is to do two things, first of which is what Congress should 
be asked to do by all of our constituents in all our districts from all 
across this country, and that is to take their hard-earned dollars that 
they send to us in the form of tax revenue and to prioritize them into 
the most efficient manner and into the most efficient programs and into 
the most efficient methodologies in order to get those programs 
effectuated for the good of the citizens. And that is what this 
amendment does.
  In accord with the opinion of the administration, there are a number 
of programs now in existence essentially attempting to do the same 
thing. Here with regard to education, essentially trying to lift up the 
quality of education in this country, a laudable goal obviously; 
secondly, to lift up the quality of teachers in the classroom, again a 
laudable goal obviously. But we are asked to prioritize this to make 
sure that those dollars actually get to those programs and effectively 
down to the teachers, where it can do the most good. The gentleman from 
Georgia's amendment would do just that.
  One of the fundamental flaws in the No Child Left Behind program is 
to take away the issue of authority and local control from the 
frontlines, and that is the classroom and that is the teacher, and 
shift it someplace else. The fundamental flaw with No Child Left Behind 
is to say that the parents should not be involved in making the 
decisions or the teachers should not be the ones making the ultimate 
decisions on how we educate our children, but it should be the 
bureaucrats down in Washington and unelected at that.
  We need believe that the focus should be shifted back to the parents, 
back to the teachers, for those who are the people on the frontlines, 
those are the people who are having the day-to-day interaction with our 
children.
  When you think about it, if you have kids in school or if you have 
neighbors with kids in school and they have a problem in the classroom, 
where is the first place that they go to to try to resolve that 
problem? They go into the schoolhouse and into the classroom and talk 
to the teacher. They want to get to the bottom of it right then and 
there. And ultimately it is a matter of making sure that that teacher 
is the best qualified teacher that you can actually have in that 
classroom.
  Parents do not go to Washington, DC, and speak with the U.S. 
Department of Education to try to resolve some difficulty they have in 
their classroom. Parents do not come down here to speak with the 
Secretary of Education to deal with difficulties they have in their 
classroom. They go to the teacher. And they sit down and work things 
out to try to get to the heart of it and the root of the cause of the 
problem.
  And the gentleman from Georgia realizes this. And he realizes that in 
order to make a better classroom where more learning can occur, where 
we can have better schoolhouses and classrooms, where we can raise up 
the quality of education, it is to raise up the quality of our 
teachers. The gentleman from Georgia's amendment does just that by 
ending programs that are ineffective, ineffectual, and don't get the 
job done, and transfers them over to those programs that do get the job 
done. In this matter we should all be commending the gentleman and 
support his amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I must confess a certain degree of 
confusion about this amendment. I always had the impression that good 
Republicans like block grants, and I also had the impression that 
thoughtful Republicans favor as much local control as possible. And yet 
this amendment would have us running in the opposite direction.
  What this amendment would do is it would take the dollars in question 
out of a program which provides aid to all States in the Union and 
instead reserve that money for use in just the few States who have 
bought into the approach that is supported by these two gentlemen.
  One of my favorite quotations is from Eric Sevareid, who used to be 
on CBS News a few years ago, and he said, ``It is important to maintain 
the courage of one's doubts in an age of dangerous certainties.''
  And I have to say that I have a lot of doubts about what is the most 
effective way to teach children. I don't think I have all the answers. 
I don't think this House has all the answers. So I don't think we ought 
to be dictating to States what answers they seek in their teacher 
quality programs.
  The virtue of the committee approach, as opposed to the approach 
suggested by the amendment, is that

[[Page 19556]]

States can use the money in the block grant as it is provided in the 
committee bill and they can use it for any variety of techniques, 
including the one that is being promoted by the two gentlemen pushing 
this amendment. It seems to me that at a time when we are already 
questioning the rigidity of No Child Left Behind, and I must confess I 
voted for No Child Left Behind but with serious reservations and I will 
not vote to renew it unless those reservations are corrected, but it 
just seems to me that at a time when we are recognizing that No Child 
Left Behind is needlessly rigid, we should not be piling on to that 
rigidity with additional pieces of our own.
  So with that I would simply urge Members to allow States to continue 
to have the flexibility that they have under the committee approach, 
and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, the sponsor of 
the amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I appreciate the Chair's comments and I agree with him that we don't 
have all the answers. I would suggest, however, that what this 
amendment does is more appropriately prioritize moneys based upon the 
concerns and recommendation of the Department of Education. The 
fundamental difference between the two programs, the Teacher Quality 
State Grants, which is a program that in many areas gets excellent 
results, the differences are two that this amendment addresses:
  One is that the overwhelming portion of the money that is available 
has been put into the Teacher Quality State Grants, moving from $2.8 
billion last year to $3.1 billion this year, as opposed to the Teacher 
Incentive Fund, which would move from a high of $100 million in the 
last 2 years to $99 million this year, in essence a flat 
appropriations.
  The other main difference is that the Teacher Incentive Fund rewards 
results. It rewards performance. It rewards teachers and schools who 
are actually gaining those high quality results that we desire for all 
students across our Nation.
  So I would respectfully disagree with the Chair, that this is not 
prescriptive in its formula and the only rigidity that it has in it is 
that it requires results. So, hopefully, the House will see that the 
sense in looking at performance, looking at quality teachers, looking 
at what they are doing in the classroom and the results that they are 
getting, and rewarding that kind of performance makes sense. I would 
suggest that that is what most of us have said at home when we talk to 
our constituents and that this amendment aligns the actions of this 
House with what we have told our constituents we would be supporting 
here in the House of Representatives.
  So I appreciate the time, and I encourage, again, my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for his leadership. I compliment him on the amendment. I urge 
its adoption.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. First of all, Madam Chairman, I want to express my 
appreciation to the chairman of the committee for including funding for 
the teacher incentive fund. It is so vitally important to the inner 
cities to be able to attract the best teachers and this fund can be 
used by school districts to do just that.
  Too often in the school systems, the best teachers tend to flee to 
the suburbs and they also flee to the good schools. Where we really 
need the top notch teachers are in the inner cities because our cities 
are really facing a crisis in the sense that their percentage of those 
who do not finish high school is growing and is a terrible waste of 
human capital. We can't afford that.
  And one of the important things is to get these students in the early 
years, first grade, kindergarten, second grade, third grade, to like 
school and to like to learn, and that takes a quality teacher. And this 
program, and thanks to the chairman we have the 99 million dollars and 
this proposal for some additional, allows schools to give some 
financial incentives to the really top notch teachers to take on that 
responsibility.
  I have an instance in my district where a handicapped teacher has 
inspired a class in a low-income neighborhood and it has made a world 
of difference in the lives of these young people.
  So I just want to express, again, my appreciation to the chairman and 
for the interest of the gentleman from Georgia in the Teacher Incentive 
program because I think it is one of the vital challenges in addressing 
the dropout rate in the big cities to ensure that these students get a 
taste for education and they enjoy the experience and they stay with 
it. I am hopeful that the States will use these funds in that way, to 
give incentives to the very best teachers to go into the toughest areas 
and inspire young people.
  I will add that the Teach for America program does a great job in 
that respect because they send their Teach for America candidates into 
very difficult situations.
  I hope that we can address the dropout rate prospectively when we 
have a nation where 31 percent statistically do not finish high school 
and we know it is much larger in the cities. So there is the challenge, 
and this program, which the chairman was gracious enough to include in 
the original bill, is one of the keys to addressing that problem. So I, 
again, commend the chairman and also the gentleman from Georgia for 
their concern to inspire and make it attractive for the quality 
teachers to teach in difficult situations.
  The teacher is where it is. If you ask any group, as I do when I give 
a speech, how many of you had a teacher, maybe two that made a 
difference in your life? And every hand will go up, and that says so 
eloquently that we want to have teachers in the toughest situations 
where their students will at some time in the future say, yes, I had a 
teacher that made a difference in my life.

                              {time}  1230

  That's why I'm here. That's why I finished high school. That's why I 
press on.
  I went into a charter school where there was a Teach for America 
Teachers and it was in one of the toughest parts of the city. And the 
teacher there said, as we walked through the door, these were fifth 
graders, ``What do we do in 2010 or 2011?'' Without missing a beat, 
every student said, ``We go to college.'' Now, if I had done that 5 
years ago or 3, they would have said, ``What? What do we do? I don't 
know. Drop out, probably.''
  So I want to again commend the chairman for many parts of this bill 
that are important to giving teachers inspiration and making schools 
better so that whomever is here 25 years from now will not be saying 
that 31 percent of the students in the United States drop out. We can 
ill afford that in the competitive world in which we live.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be 
postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:

[[Page 19557]]

       Page 80, line 2, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $33,907,000)''.

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment that mirrors the President's budget request to eliminate 
funding in the bill for the Alaskan Native Education Equity Program. By 
so doing this, it will save our Nation's taxpayers $33.9 million.
  Now, as with many of the programs that you will be hearing us 
discussing both yesterday and today and in the future, this program 
does, in fact, support a worthwhile goal, and that is providing 
additional educational services to Alaskan Natives. The services 
provided to Alaskan Natives that are students through this program, 
however, are redundant of many of the other types of programs that are 
provided through various other agencies, most notably through the 
Department's other education programs.
  See, our funding priorities must be exactly that. When we come 
together as a conference and then as a body to support appropriation 
bills, we are called upon by the American taxpayers to set those 
things, priorities, just as the American family budget is created each 
day, each week, each month in American families across their country 
and they sit down at their kitchen table to decide what are their 
priorities when it comes to spending their hard-earned dollars.
  They have educational interests in mind as well. They may have 
children that they have to decide whether they're going to be sending 
them to college this year or next, to a high-priced college or a 
moderate-priced college, et cetera. They have to set priorities when it 
comes to how much money will they be able to set aside in their savings 
account for educational purposes. Or if their kids are in a K-12 
system, whether it's public school or private school, likewise, the 
American public has to set their own priorities, decide how much money 
they can set aside if they choose to send their kids to a private 
school. Or if their kids are going to a public school, how much money 
will they set aside so that they can spend on their children when it 
comes to educational purposes for extracurricular activities or 
supplements to the school program.
  American families are called upon to do this every single day, every 
single week of the year with their budget. And all we are asking right 
now is that the U.S. Congress and the Senate do the exact same thing 
with their hard-earned tax dollars that they've entrusted to us. In 
this matter, what we are doing is saying we have several programs, the 
same laudable goals. We are eliminating one and shifting the dollars to 
the another so that the program gets done.
  I would now like to bring my colleagues' attention to a recent report 
by the Nonpartisan Tax Foundation. This report details how much money 
each State taxpayer contributes in Federal dollars and how much money 
each State taxpayer receives back. This is very interesting, especially 
if you come from the State of New Jersey, as I do.
  According to this report, Alaska, which is the subject of this 
amendment, ranks second in the Nation, getting $1.80 back for every $1 
that the taxpayers up there pay in Federal taxes. In contrast, my good 
State of New Jersey ranks dead last. We receive back a paltry 63 cents 
back for every dollar that a New Jersey taxpayer sends to Washington. 
What does that mean? That means that New Jersey taxpayers, working just 
as hard as the taxpayers up in the great State of Alaska are, are 
sending one dollar in with their paycheck each week, or multiple 
dollars as it is. But at the end of the day, when they see how Congress 
appropriates those dollars, New Jerseyans find out that they're only 
getting back 63 cents on the dollar.
  Conversely, we look up to Alaska, the subject of this amendment. How 
much does every taxpayer get back from the dollar that they contribute 
to the good of the country and the State? They get back $1.80. It's a 
fairness issue, quite honestly, Madam Chairman. Where are our dollars 
going?
  And with the new Democratic majority passing the largest tax increase 
in American history recently in its budget, the burden on New Jersey 
taxpayers will only continue to rise. Yet at the same time, we are 
providing nearly $40 million for redundant services in a State that is 
already nearly on a 2-1 ratio on every dollar that it sends to 
Washington.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Let me just finish this thought.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Madam 
Chairman. There is a problem with the amendment that is at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from New Jersey yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I am not yielding. I am finishing my 
thought.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, and I will be brief, we 
must remember that every dollar that we send to Washington comes out of 
that proverbial ``family budget'' that I referenced before. So when 
duplicate programs like this come before us, we should put ourselves in 
the shoes of the family in the same situation.
  So, do you think that families would go out, families from the other 
side of the aisle would go out and spend their hard-earned tax dollars 
on a month's worth of groceries and then go out and eat every single 
night of the week? I don't think so. That would be duplicative. They 
would be spending money on the exact same thing. American families 
don't do that; neither should Congress. That doesn't make much sense to 
me, Madam Chairman, and quite frankly, neither does the funding of 
multiple Federal programs do the same.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry before the gentleman begins.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, at the desk, the amendment 
that the gentleman was speaking to concerned Native Hawaiians, but the 
gentleman spoke about Alaskans. And I asked the Clerk if he had the 
amendment that the gentleman was speaking about on Native Alaskans and 
he said he did not have that amendment. So I'm trying to figure out, 
are we responding to the Native Hawaiian language for $33,907,000, 
which is what is at the desk, or the gentleman's argument about 
Alaskans, which is not at the desk? And that is my inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will re-report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, that's about Hawaiians.
  The CHAIRMAN. Did the Clerk report the intended amendment?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, there are two amendments 
at the desk. The amendment that I was speaking on is my amendment, 
which goes to the issue of Native Alaskans. The gentleman may be 
referring to another subsequent amendment that will later on refer to 
Native Hawaiians. It's the same page, same line, same dollar amount, so 
I can understand the confusion.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, let me simply say that I have only been to 
Alaska once in my life. I have certainly never been in an Alaskan 
school. But my grandfather taught me a long time ago, and I'm sure you 
have heard this many times in your own lives, but he used to say that 
nothing is more expensive in the long run than a badly educated child. 
And I don't care if that

[[Page 19558]]

child comes from New Jersey or Wisconsin or Hawaii or Alaska, a badly 
educated child is a menace to society. Why, just imagine a badly 
educated child could grow up to be elected as a Member of Congress from 
New Jersey or Wisconsin. They could come into this Chamber filled full 
of all sorts of half-baked ideas, and the Congress would be plagued 
with having to spend hours and hours dealing with those ideas. I'm sure 
I've presented a few of the bad ideas myself to this House in that 
time.
  The point is that Alaska may seem remote and far away, but the fact 
is that there are special children who do have special needs. Does 
anyone really believe that we are spending enough on Indian education 
programs around the whole country, for instance? And yet, we're told by 
the administration that we ought to eliminate the program for Alaska 
Native students because they benefit from the Indian education 
programs. Well, I've got tribes in my own State, and I know how 
inadequate some of those schools are, though they're trying the best 
they can.
  I would simply say that if the authorizing committee wants to 
deauthorize this program, then fine, but I see no purpose right now in 
singling out one special group of children for exclusion from this bill 
and this account. I can think of a lot of things that go on in Alaska 
that I would just assume see stopped before I would see them stop 
educating children with special needs. I wish that they would take a 
different approach, for instance, on their highway aids. I think that 
their lack of judgment on that score has embarrassed the entire 
Congress. But I don't think that the Indian children or the Native 
Alaskan children who are educated under this should wind up being the 
principal victims of that action by the State of Alaska.
  I sense in this House that people are touchy about voting for 
anything for Alaska since that happened. Well, I don't want these kids 
to be unlucky enough to run into accidents that started out to happen 
to somebody else. So it seems to me that the wise course is to reject 
the gentleman's amendment and allow the authorizing committee to 
determine whether or not this program ought to continue or not.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I would like to recognize my good friend from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  And let me just begin to reference the chairman's comment as far as 
whether we should be excluding one set of children from this. Well, 
that's exactly the point; I believe that we should not be excluding any 
children. And the language in the bill that is before us right now 
excludes the children of 49 other States.

                              {time}  1245

  As the Representative of the Fifth District of New Jersey, I am 
concerned. I come to the floor because this underlying bill excludes 
the children from the State of New Jersey with this special extra 
funding. Let me assure the gentleman there are children with special 
needs in the State of New Jersey, and there are children with special 
needs in the State of Wisconsin as well. They are excluded from the 
Alaska Native Education Program. I am trying to bring fairness to the 
overall program, which is also what the administration is trying to do.
  Let me make that point by sharing with you this comment. The Alaska 
Native Education Program is authorized by the ESEA of 1965 and they are 
subject to the reauthorization. But the administration was not 
recommending reauthorization and, accordingly, funded it at zero. The 
administration, as do I, recognizes the importance of ensuring that the 
Alaska Native students receive appropriate educational services. This 
request is consistent with the administration policy of increasing 
resources for high-priority programs by eliminating small categorical 
programs that have a limited effect, such as this.
  In addition, the services provided to Alaska Native students through 
this program are redundant with many of the programs through the 
Department's Indian Education Program already being funded.
  School districts that wish to implement programs and services 
tailored to the educational and cultural needs of the Alaska Native 
students are able to use funds already provided under other Federal 
programs in the 2008 budget. That includes $1 billion in direct support 
for the education of Indians and Alaska Natives in addition to the 
significant funds that are provided to those students who receive 
services through broader Federal programs; grant programs such as title 
I grants to local educational agencies and special grants.
  Further, let me point this out as well: Alaska Native students will 
also benefit in addition to $1 billion that I also already referenced. 
They will also benefit from the Department of Indian Education 
Programs, which provide more than $118 million, $118 million, in 
formula grants to school districts and competitive grants for 
demonstration and professional development programs as well.
  You see, these programs already serve as the Department's principal 
vehicle for addressing those unique educational and culture-related 
needs which the gentleman from Wisconsin is referring to.
  The bottom line is there are already programs established that 
address those concerns that the gentleman from Wisconsin raises. The 
administration recognized this and already requested appropriations of 
$1 billion overall, plus the $118 million in special formula grants.
  So it is our position, in line with the administration, that we do 
need to address those specific needs of those children who are in 
unique circumstances such as we find with Native American Indians in 
Alaska. But we do not need to do it in a redundant manner.
  Finally, I would just conclude by saying the gentleman from Wisconsin 
is correct. We do not want to have children not being educated, 
regardless of what State they come from, whether it is from New Jersey, 
the good State of Georgia, the good State of Wisconsin or Alaska. But 
we are not doing the children any favor whatsoever if we do not 
appropriate the dollars in a manner that effectively gets that job 
done. This amendment works to effectuate and ensure those kids get 
properly educated.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from New Jersey for 
offering this amendment. I hope this House will see fit to pass it.
  But let me say this: I think as we talk about children and education, 
that from my background, and I have a high school education, I attended 
college for a short period of time prior to being married, but let me 
say this: What I have found is that education is best from the local 
level, and I don't know that the Federal Government can really take 
some of these programs and put them down into a local school district 
and say here is this money, use it for this purpose or you don't get 
the money.
  To me, it would be much better if some of this money were set down in 
a block grant to the State and let the State identify the problems and 
especially the funding problems that they have and be able to 
administer the money.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I am standing here today speaking 
for young people in Alaska. I am sure that when Mr. Young gets the 
opportunity, he will be down here to speak for them, too.
  I wasn't aware of the fact that the young children in Alaska needed 
the tender mercies of the gentleman from New Jersey to speak for them. 
I would

[[Page 19559]]

think that the children in New Jersey have all they can do, considering 
the level of the rhetoric I have heard for the last few minutes, to get 
the best education possible there. The Congress is certainly not being 
well informed about it today.
  I most certainly agree with the other gentleman who said that 
education is best left to the local level. How about letting the 
gentleman from Alaska, or any other place where they understand what 
the educational needs of their children are, handle it at their level? 
That would be the way to take care of it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No, I will not yield. You had more than enough time 
to make your case.
  Madam Chairman, I am going to make a case for those children and the 
children in Hawaii and the children in every other State and area in 
this country who deserve the support of this Congress. I have heard 
talk already down here today about taxes being paid. You don't think 
taxes are being paid in Alaska or in Hawaii or elsewhere?
  When you talk about local programs, I have the local programs that we 
have in Hawaii. I am sure Mr. Young has the local programs that we have 
in Alaska. I haven't examined them in New Jersey, but, as I say, I have 
heard the rhetoric for the last few minutes. Maybe I had better go up 
there and give them a hand.
  Now, I respect every Member of this floor, and I expect to receive 
the same in return. When the State of Hawaii came into the Union, one 
of the protocols of the Admissions Act is the requirement that we 
recognize and take care of our Hawaiian children. We have programs that 
are geared towards that. We have Historically Black Colleges in this 
country. We have established over the past few decades studies in 
various backgrounds, ethnically, culturally, racially. We have caucuses 
in this Congress that recognize the various backgrounds from which our 
people come.
  Hawaii, I can tell you, just as Alaska is, because I have visited 
Alaska and have had an opportunity to speak with the teachers and 
schoolchildren in Alaska, we are a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-
ethnic country. We are a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-background, 
rainbow state in Hawaii, and we recognize those backgrounds and we try 
to take care of it in our educational processes.
  All we are asking for is the opportunity here to help fund local 
programs that have local assistance as well. That is done in program 
after program after program.
  Now, if the gentleman does not care to have the Federal Government 
fund anything for education in the United States, that is his 
prerogative. I recognize that and respect that. I don't approve of it, 
and I hope the Congress won't approve of it. But to have any Member 
come into another State without any notice to anybody that they are 
going to do it, by the way, a courtesy that I would extend to anybody 
in here, I have to find out about it by osmosis that this is being 
done, it is shameful and it needs to be stopped and it needs to have an 
end put to it.
  Now, if the gentleman has specific objections to anything being done 
in Alaska, he should have taken it up with the gentleman from Alaska. 
That is minimum courtesy in this body. But to come on the floor and 
make the kind of accusations that are made today is an insult to the 
gentleman from Alaska and an insult to the Appropriations Committee and 
an insult to the House of Representatives.
  If there are objections to anything in the next one that comes up, I 
hope that whoever offers that amendment with Hawaii would have had the 
courtesy to sit down with me and with Representative Hirono and 
specifically state what their objections were, so that we might be able 
to accommodate them, had they legitimacy and foundation. That is the 
minimum we can expect from one another.
  This is a shameful process. I hadn't realized until right now that we 
could solve the educational problems in this country if we could just 
keep those Alaskan kids from getting a dime for any program that has 
been put together by Representative Young and the local educators in 
Alaska.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I thank the Chair, and I 
appreciate the gentleman's passion. I would suggest, however, that each 
of us are elected to this House to determine best how we should use our 
vote, to either concur or disagree with the manner in which this body 
spends hard-working American taxpayer money. So I wouldn't criticize 
anybody for coming to the floor and providing their assessment of 
priorities as to where they believe hard-earned American taxpayer money 
ought to be spent.
  I am pleased to yield to my good friend from New Jersey for a 
comment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I 
would just make reference to the gentleman from Hawaii. I believe he 
misstates the intent of the legislation here when he says that the 
intent is to make sure that Alaska or Hawaii, and this bill is only on 
Alaska, does not get a dime. As my testimony indicated, Alaska will 
continue to get more than a dime, as the President's budget request 
included $1 billion in direct support for the education of Indian and 
Alaskan Natives. That is more than one dime.
  Native Alaskans will also get $118 million in formula grants to 
school districts, competitive grants for demonstration and professional 
development programs. That is more than one dime.
  Finally, to the gentleman from Hawaii's first point, which he agreed 
with the previous comment that education is best done locally and that 
the folks of Alaska know best about how to educate their children and 
the folks from Hawaii know best how to educate their children, I would 
presume he would agree the people from New Jersey also know how best to 
educate their children.
  I would ask the gentleman from Hawaii, if he truly believes that, 
would he support our initiatives and my initiative in the LEARN Act to 
allow States to opt out of the cumbersome regulations of education from 
the Federal level and keep their dollars in Hawaii and keep their 
dollars in Alaska so they would be in the best position to educate 
their children.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for offering the amendment, 
and I thank him for his explanation. There is no desire to remove all 
funding in this area. That would be a different debate and a different 
discussion. That is not the debate we are having right now.
  Madam Chairman, I do want to point out the larger picture, the bigger 
picture we are talking about here, and that is the issue of fiscal 
responsibility and the issue of responsibly spending taxpayer money, 
hard-earned American taxpayer money.
  I was pleased to hear the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
say to the gentleman from New Jersey that if the committee determined 
that those funds ought not be authorized, that they would be pleased to 
remove those funds, or something like that.
  I would point out to the gentleman and to my colleagues that on page 
302, 303, 304, and 305 of the report of the Committee on 
Appropriations, there is a paragraph that is headed ``Appropriations 
Not Authorized By Law.'' I would suggest that we revisit these items 
and require that they be authorized.
  ``Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules the House, 
the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying 
bill,'' this bill we are talking about right now, ``which are not 
authorized by law for the period concerned.''
  It may be helpful, Madam Chairman, for individuals to hear which ones 
are not authorized, not talking about the quality of those programs or 
the need for them, but the fact that this is a process that has come 
about where we are appropriating money for many programs which are in 
fact not authorized.

[[Page 19560]]

  Department of Labor, for example, Training and Employment Services, 
not authorized since 2003. Appropriations in this bill, $3.5 billion.
  Not authorized in this bill, the Veterans Workforce Improvement 
Program, not authorized since 2003. Appropriated in this bill, $1.649 
billion.

                              {time}  1300

  National Health Service Corps, not authorized since 2002, again not 
talking about the appropriateness of the appropriation itself, but 
whether or not the process is such that it ought not be authorized 
prior to carrying out the appropriation. In this bill, $131 million.
  Not authorized in this bill, Healthy Start, not authorized since 
2005. In this bill, $120 million.
  Not authorized in this bill, Rural Health Outreach Grants, not 
authorized since 2006. Funding in this bill to a level of $52.9 
million.
  Not authorized in this bill, cancer registries, not authorized since 
2003. In this bill, funded at the rate of $47.9 million.
  Not authorized in this bill, oral health promotion, not authorized 
since 2005. Funding in this bill, $13.1 million.
  Not authorized in this bill, substance abuse and mental health 
services programs, not authorized since 2003. Funding in this bill, 
$3.26 billion.
  Madam Chairman, the list goes on and on, and I draw my colleagues' 
attention to it, because I would agree with the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee that we ought to be concerned about what is 
authorized by the authorizing committees and whether or not 
appropriations ought to be spent for items that are not authorized.
  But the challenge for us is to spend responsibly, spend hard-earned 
taxpayer money responsibly.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I just want to thank the gentleman for bringing to the 
attention of the House again the fact that the authorizing committees 
have failed to do so much work in past years.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. My friends, this is a sad day in this body. 
Apparently the students of New Jersey are trying to take money from 
Alaskan students, pitting State against State instead of talking about 
education.
  I am a little bit chagrined with the gentleman from New Jersey. This 
is supposed to be a House of honor. You didn't tell me you were going 
to offer this amendment. You didn't talk to the gentleman from Hawaii 
on the amendment. You are attacking two States that are not contiguous 
to the United States. This is a harmful thing to do. We are a new 
State. I have poverty that you don't even think of, and yet you say you 
want my money, my money for my students that need to be educated to go 
to New Jersey.
  That is a sad day for this House.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee for putting this in the bill. And if we 
continue this, we will be called biting one another, very much like the 
mink in my State that kill their own. There is always another day when 
those who bite will be killed, too, and I am very good at that.
  I just think it is a disgrace to have one State, the education of one 
State, being pitted against another State. This is education. These are 
needy students, a minority that has been neglected, has not been helped 
to the degree they should have been over the centuries. I can 
truthfully say and pridefully say we have been good in the last years, 
over the last 35 years. I have provided education and supported 
education. My people have risen and become leaders because this 
Congress saw the wisdom of us providing us money.
  And now we have an individual from a State that doesn't have the 
greatest reputation in the world trying to take money from one State to 
give to another State. If that is the case, then let's just all have a 
big donnybrook right here. I'm ready. I'm really ready because what we 
are doing is dead wrong.
  I told the gentleman here about 2 years ago, shame on you. Shame on 
you. Shame on each one of you. And the guys that are trying to not 
spend money and the guys that are trying to balance the budget, to take 
and attack education in States, Hawaii and Alaska, that have the least 
representation as far as numbers go. And if there is guilt here, it is 
because I have been able to represent my State better than New Jersey. 
I would suggest New Jersey ought to elect some new Congressmen, I 
suggest respectfully, that can do the job. I believe that is really 
true. If they can't do the job, elect somebody new. I have done it. I 
am going to continue to do it. I am going to fight for my State, and I 
am going to fight for my State every time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate for the 
speaker to say that the people from New Jersey should be electing----
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Capuano). Does the gentleman from Alaska 
yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have not yielded. I will not yield.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I make a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Is it a violation of parliamentary decorum 
by suggesting that a Member not be reelected in the State of New 
Jersey?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I don't know what the gentleman is talking 
about. I just said they were not well represented. Respectfully, if I 
can say that. I don't name anybody's name. I don't mention anybody. I 
don't specifically mention any names. And that is not why.
  For the rest of you that continue this constant harping on this floor 
about cutting monies from other areas under the guise of balancing the 
budget, I say shame on you, too. I say shame on you because we are not 
doing the legislative process any good.
  Regardless of who is in power in this House, Democrat or Republican, 
we should be leading this Nation and we are at a standstill now. That 
is one reason our ratings are very low, totally, and that is a shame. 
Because we do have the work of this Nation that we should be doing and 
we should be addressing and we should take care of it.
  I don't agree with everything that side does. We should not always 
agree on everything, but we should have the ability to get together and 
solve problems and to legislate, and we have not done that. So I am a 
little frustrated. And like I say, those that bite me will be bitten 
back.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Is it appropriate political decorum for a 
Member to say that he represents his State in a better manner than the 
entire delegation of another State represents their State?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unable to rule on such remarks 
after other debate has ensued.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Is there a manner in which I can rephrase 
the question so that the Chair will be able to answer the question or 
comment on the previous speaker's statements?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair can only rule on such words if a 
timely point of order is made.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unable to rule on words between 
Members previously spoken in debate, absent a timely point of order or 
demand that such words be taken down.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 19561]]


  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have noticed that the last several 
speakers on the House floor were rather strident in their comments, 
engaged in ad hominem attacks and perhaps at least one of them could 
have had their words taken down.
  Having served in this body for several years, I have yet to discover 
any direct correlation between the stridency with which one delivers 
their message and the righteousness behind their cause.
  Many have come here to say that somehow House decorum demands that 
one speak to another Member before offering an amendment that somehow 
may be injurious to their district's interests. In all of the years I 
have served in this body, I have yet to have somebody come to me and 
explain to me ahead of time how their amendment, how it impacts the 
people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas.
  Yet every day we see something like the largest tax increase in 
history, which certainly has a terrible impact on the hardworking 
people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. Nobody sought out 
my permission before they brought that particular piece of legislation 
to the floor.
  We have pieces of trade legislation, or it should be called anti-
trade legislation, coming to the floor, harming my cow-calf operators 
in the Fifth District of Texas. Nobody seeks my permission or 
acquiescence before that legislation is brought to the floor.
  We have legislation imposing death taxes on people who have worked 
their whole life to build small businesses in the Fifth Congressional 
District of Texas. Nobody seeks my acquiescence or permission before 
bringing that legislation to the floor.
  I also noticed that an earlier speaker referred to the funds in this 
amendment as ``my money.'' Well, isn't that a fascinating concept, ``my 
money.'' I thought it was the taxpayers' money, many of whom reside in 
the State of New Jersey. Many of whom reside in the State of Texas.
  I am interested why we seem to have on top of all the other education 
funds we have, and it is not exactly like this is an area of Federal 
funding that has gone lacking, since 1995, the elementary and secondary 
education budget function has increased 147 percent. That is about the 
highest increase of any budget function in that period of time.
  I wonder, Mr. Chairman, maybe we ought to go out and create a special 
education fund for New Jersey and for Texas and for Arkansas and Maine 
and New Hampshire. Why don't we create one for all 50 States. Then what 
we can do is we can go ahead with the Democrats' plan for the largest 
tax increase in history, and we can take all of this money away from 
American families. Then Washington can keep, say, a third of it in 
administration cost and waste and inefficiency, and then we can design 
these programs with our State names on them, take credit for it, and 
then hand it back to the taxpayers, whose money it is in the first 
place.
  So I want to salute the gentleman from New Jersey for his courage, 
for his steadfast leadership on this issue, his dedication to 
education, his dedication to fiscal responsibility, and for coming and 
suffering these ad hominem attacks. That, Mr. Chairman, is what is 
truly shameful about this particular moment.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding for just a moment.
  As the Representative from the Fifth District of the State of New 
Jersey, I remind the gentleman from Alaska that the State of New Jersey 
has 13 congressional Representatives from both sides of the aisle. And 
so when the gentleman from Alaska makes reference to our 
Representatives from the State of New Jersey not doing their job and 
not appropriately representing the people of the State, I remind him 
that it is an accusation not against simply this one gentleman who is 
standing at the microphone right now proposing this one amendment, but 
it is an entire body of 13 gentlemen from both sides of the aisle who I 
say, and I commend both Representatives from the Democrat and the 
Republican side of the aisle, for appropriately and admirably 
representing the good citizens from the State of New Jersey.
  My colleagues from the other 12 districts do not need to be defended 
against these rash accusations by the gentleman from Alaska. But I do 
come to the floor now to appropriately defend them, nonetheless.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I also take up the comment that the gentleman from Texas was just 
making reference to which the gentleman from Alaska stated in his 
statement what was ``my money'' or it is Alaska's money. Well, maybe 
that is the problem we have had in this Congress for too long, even 
when Republicans were in the majority and now that the Democrats are 
the majority, too. Too many Members of Congress see the dollars that we 
appropriate here not as the taxpayers' dollar, but see it as their very 
own personal checking account. Maybe that is the fundamental problem 
that we have with why we spend more and more each year.
  I remember when the Democrats were running for office this past 
election. They were railing against the Republican Party, that we were 
the party out of control, spending more and more and more. If they were 
elected to office, they would come here and rein things in when it came 
to spending. And I served on the Budget Committee when the Democrats 
were in the minority, and how they railed against us from the other 
side of the aisle. And at times I even agreed with them on some of the 
charges that they made, that we were spending too much money.
  And now when the Democrats take control, what do they do? Give us the 
largest tax increase in U.S. history, and we see spending continue to 
go through the roof. Where do those dollars come from? They come from 
American taxpayers, from the family budgets, from men and women in 
Alaska and New Jersey and across this country, working hard just to get 
by, and yet they are being forced by the Democrats' tax increases to 
send more dollars here to Washington.
  When the gentleman from Alaska comes forth and says it is ``my 
money,'' maybe that is why in some respects when there are projects 
that are appropriated such as bridges to nowhere and the like, the 
American public says that is our dollars going to Washington, and it 
shouldn't be looked at for just such frivolous things as this.

                              {time}  1315

  The amendment that's before us right now is an appropriate amendment 
to say that the hard-earned tax dollars should go to programs that are 
necessary but be spent in an effective manner.
  Members from all 50 States see the need to educate our children. 
Members from all 50 States, including the State of New Jersey, see the 
need to deal with the issue of Alaska native students, and that is why 
this administration has already requested appropriations of $1 billion 
for that, $118 million in other categorical aids such as that. So all 
we are doing is saying make sure that those dollars that come from New 
Jersey and elsewhere are spent effectively.
  Finally, to close on this point of ``my money,'' maybe the gentleman 
from Alaska was not listening at the opening of my comments when I said 
that New Jersey taxpayers send a dollar to Washington and only get 63 
cents back on the dollar, whereas his constituents, yes, they do much 
better. They send a dollar to Washington and then they get $1.80 back.
  I would ask the gentleman from Alaska and other Members from the 
Democrat side of the aisle, where do they think that other 80 cents on 
the dollar is coming from? I will tell you it's coming from the good, 
hardworking taxpayers from the State of New Jersey

[[Page 19562]]

and Connecticut and New York that are donor States to States like 
Alaska, that we are subsidizing their programs.
  I would ask the gentleman from Alaska to refrain from, therefore, 
referring to it as his money. It is the taxpayers in the Fifth 
Congressional District and the rest of New Jersey, whether you're in a 
Democrat district or Republican district, who are helping fund these 
programs.
  Ms. FOXX. I want to just say I am very concerned when there is an 
attitude here in the Congress that it is our money to spend. I want to 
make sure that nobody ever forgets that we are the stewards of money 
that we legally steal from the people of this country. We take it from 
them under duress, and we have a tremendous responsibility to make sure 
that that money is being spent well.
  There's no such thing as Federal dollars. It's all money that belongs 
to the American taxpayers, and we're up here confiscating a great deal 
of their money and deciding how to spend it. And it's up to us to make 
sure that we spend it very, very carefully and very, very fairly.
  The Constitution provides for no role for the Federal Government in 
education. We're already overstepping our bounds, and if we're going to 
overstep our bounds, we better be extraordinarily careful in that 
respect.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a point here 
because I think what just happened on this House floor 5 minutes ago 
was extraordinary.
  For a member of the Republican Party to get up and defend what has 
happened here and the investments that we're making I think exposes 
what's been going on here for the last several months, is that we have 
a fringe group, Mr. Chairman, of Members of this Congress who 
consistently get up and try to pin Members against each other, try to 
find specific programs and somehow expose somebody as somehow being 
irresponsible. And I think it's extraordinary what happened here, that 
we have an extreme group in this Congress that consistently tries to 
divide us when we're trying to get the people's work done.
  This is the United States of America, and the gentleman from New 
Jersey benefits from the Federal court system that helps Wall Street 
thrive. It's the rule of law in this country that is funded by the 
taxpayer, courts, judges, buildings, the rule of law, and that allows 
Wall Street to benefit. That allows citizens in New Jersey to earn a 
good living and to pay taxes.
  And we have Members from Texas, Mr. Chairman, the great investment 
that this country has made into that great State, NASA, the 
universities, Texas has benefited from those investments.
  Members from the West, where the West wouldn't even exist, we have 
congressional districts that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the 
investment of the Federal Government to build dams. The Colorado River 
Basin Project--there wouldn't be congressional districts in the West if 
it wasn't for the Federal investment.
  We're the United States of America, for God's sake, and let's stop 
trying to divide each other. Let's recognize that this bill has been 
supported unanimously from the Appropriations Committee, Democrats and 
Republicans, and I want to thank the distinguished Member from New York 
who put so much thought and concern into this bill, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) and gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), who have 
consistently tried to make investments and recognize that people in 
Alaska, kids in Alaska need help, and I'm okay with that. I've never 
been to Alaska but we have needs.
  Let's stop trying to divide each other and stop the lectures of 
fiscal responsibility. The mess we're in is here because of $3 trillion 
in debt that our friends have borrowed from China and Japan and OPEC 
countries over the past 6 years; borrowed more money, Mr. Chairman, 
from foreign interests than every President and Congress before them 
combined.
  So enough of the lectures on fiscal responsibility. We're here now. 
Let's make these investments. Let's compete in a global economy by 
making these investments. We're competing against 1.3 billion people in 
China, 1.2 billion people in India. We need to make these investments. 
We only have 300 million people in this country. They need to be 
educated. They need to be healthy, and they need to live in a clean 
environment. That's what this bill does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this is 
supposed to be a healthy debate, and quite frankly, I don't think 
Members on either side should criticize Members for coming to the floor 
and debating issues.
  The gentleman from New Jersey raised, I believe, a legitimate issue, 
and that is the issue of the equity of people from one State paying in 
much more money to the Federal Government than they get back versus 
people from another State getting much more money back from the Federal 
Government than they pay in and questioning a particular program. 
That's the kind of debate that is supposed to occur here. It's the kind 
of debate that should occur here.
  Indeed, I think everyone on this floor acknowledges we have a problem 
with having spent too much money. We have a problem with too much debt, 
and I think the people on this side of the aisle have tried to make the 
point that at some point we need to stop that spending or slow that 
spending, and I believe the people who have carried forward this 
discussion, at least from this side of the aisle, have readily 
acknowledged that a great deal of that overspending occurred on our 
watch. We're not trying to point blame, but we do have a duty to come 
here and debate our financial priorities and debate our jobs.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
thank my friend from New Jersey for offering this amendment because I 
did not know that this would open up the types of discussions that it 
has, but I think it's great for this body.
  My friend from Ohio, Mr. Ryan, who, Mr. Chairman, I stood up on that 
podium and listened to many nights with the 30-something group, that 
talked about the spending of the Republicans, I hope he will come back 
now and talk about the largest tax increase in the history of this 
country. He talked about dividing Members, and I stood there, Mr. 
Chairman, right where you're at, and I listened to the rhetoric that 
was designed to divide Members.
  And talking about a spending and what's a good investment, I don't 
know when we were in the majority party why the things we weren't doing 
wasn't a good investment. Now, all of the sudden spending $11 billion 
more than the President's recommendation is a good investment. So 
spending more money is a good investment, and he's talking about that 
we borrowed money from foreign countries. I don't agree with that, but 
you know what, they probably won't borrow money from a foreign country. 
You know what they're going to do, Mr. Chairman? They're going to go up 
on your taxes. They have passed and are passing appropriations bills, 
other pieces of legislation that's going to cause this country to have 
the largest tax increase in history.
  So I want to thank him for bringing this up, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this up because this is a 
perfect example that we have to prioritize, and we all have different 
ideas about prioritizing. We all have different ideas about who's 
writing a budget, if it's a good investment or if it's wasteful 
spending.

[[Page 19563]]

  So, I support the gentleman's amendment because I don't think that 
those children in Alaska, regardless if a Member of my party says it or 
not, or the children of Hawaii need special exception and more money 
than my kids, my special need kids in the Third District of Georgia.
  So I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding, and I yield back.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to conclude this by simply 
noting that no Member who brings an amendment to an appropriations bill 
is criticizing the ranking member or the chairman of that committee. 
Indeed, I think it's a long-standing tradition and an honorable one in 
this body that appropriations bills come to the floor under an open 
rule so that we can have these discussions, and the votes reflect the 
will of the Nation as they should.
  So I want to make it clear that I don't believe that by the gentleman 
from New Jersey or myself or any other Member of this body, any Member 
on the majority side, offering an amendment, and there have been 
amendments offered, in doing so that they are in any way criticizing 
the good hard work. Indeed, I think we're honoring the tradition of the 
Appropriations Committee in that these are, in fact, brought to floor 
under an open rule, and we have full and open debate which I think is 
what the American people want.
  And I compliment the Chairman of the committee and I compliment the 
ranking member of the committee for their hard work in doing their 
jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, for decades during the Cold War, hundred 
of thousands of Department of Energy employees, including thousands of 
workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in my district, worked 
diligently at our Nation's nuclear weapons facilities. These men and 
women worked with radioactive and other hazardous materials, and some 
ultimately sacrificed their health for the security of our Nation.
  In response, Congress enacted the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act to provide compensation and medical 
benefits to these former nuclear employees. The intent of this act was 
to honor and care for Cold War veterans who became ill while working at 
the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant and other DOE facilities.
  However, due to mismanagement and delays, the compensation program 
has only paid 11,829, or 23 percent, of the 51,188 claims that have 
been filed nationwide. My constituents, and thousands of former DOE 
employees like them, have been subjected to bureaucratic red tape and 
unfair burdens of proof, delaying their compensation and even, in some 
cases, preventing them from filing claims.
  Congress made clear in enacting the compensation program that our 
Nation's Cold War heroes should be justly compensated for the illnesses 
they contracted while serving our country. Sadly, the Department of 
Labor has failed to ensure that the claims are properly processed and 
approved.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your assistance in asking the 
Department of Labor to report to Congress on the administration of the 
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, and 
specifically, I believe it is vital that the Secretary provide Congress 
with information concerning, first, the length of time it takes to 
process and evaluate a claim; second, the reasons behind the current 
backlog in processing these claims; third, the staffing of the relevant 
offices assigned to administer the program; fourth, the quality of 
communication with claimants; fifth, the process through which claims 
are approved or denied, as well as the oversight currently in place to 
assure that claims are handled properly; and sixth, the possibility of 
providing greater assistance through the Department of Labor to those 
wishing to file claims, many of whom are elderly and in poor health.
  Our Nation's former nuclear workers are truly among the unheralded 
heroes of the Cold War. We owe them and their families better than 
bureaucratic red tape, and I would greatly appreciate your assistance 
in assuring that the Department of Labor remains committed to providing 
these workers with the recognition, treatment and compensation they 
deserve.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this 
important issue. The purpose of the Energy Employee Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program is to fairly compensate our Nation's 
former nuclear workers for illnesses they contracted while serving our 
country.
  Former Department of Energy employees who are now elderly and ill 
have been subjected to bureaucratic run-arounds by the agencies 
responsible for adjudicating their claims. The Department of Labor is 
responsible for administering compensation for these former nuclear 
workers, and I concur with the gentleman from Iowa that a report from 
the Secretary detailing the administration of the compensation program 
would provide Congress with highly valuable insight into the agency's 
implementation of the program.
  Streamlining and expediting the method through which claims are 
processed and compensation provided is in the best interests of the 
families and claimants to whom our country owes its deepest gratitude 
and respect.
  I'd be happy to work with the gentleman to request this information 
from the Department and to ensure that the true intent of the program 
is being carried out with due diligence by the administration.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. LOEBSACK. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his 
willingness to address this important issue and look forward to working 
with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I rise to associate myself with the comments 
of Chairman Obey and Mr. Loebsack of Iowa.
  The American workers who fell ill during service to our country must 
be justly compensated in a reasonable period of time. As you have said, 
these men and women are American heroes. They really made a difference 
for our country.
  I have been an outspoken critic, both in the Appropriations 
Subcommittee and in my district, of EEOICPA's lack of removing the 
bureaucratic hurdles faced by claimants. I thank my two colleagues and 
join them in requesting the Department of Labor to provide this 
information.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and look 
forward to working with him on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            Indian Education

       For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not 
     otherwise provided, part A of title VII of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), 
     $124,000,000.

                       Innovation and Improvement

       For carrying out activities authorized by section 1504 (20 
     U.S.C. 6494), part G of title I (20 U.S.C. 6531 et seq.), 
     subpart 5 of part A of title II (20 U.S.C. 6651) and part C 
     and part D of title II (20 U.S.C. 6671 et seq., 20 U.S.C. 
     6751 et seq.), and part B (including subpart 2), part C, and 
     part D of title V (20 U.S.C. 7221

[[Page 19564]]

     et seq., 20 U.S.C. 7231 et seq., and 20 U.S.C. 7241) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), 
     $992,354,000: Provided, That $10,695,000 shall be provided to 
     the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards to 
     carry out section 2151(c) of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6651(c)): 
     Provided further, That from funds for subpart 4 of part C of 
     title II (20 U.S.C. 6721 et seq.), up to 3 percent shall be 
     available to the Secretary for technical assistance and 
     dissemination of information: Provided further, That 
     $258,988,000 shall be available to carry out part D of title 
     V of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7241 et seq.), of which $99,000,000 of 
     the funds for subpart 1 shall be for competitive grants to 
     local educational agencies, including charter schools that 
     are local educational agencies, or States, or partnerships of 
     (1) a local educational agency, a State, or both and (2) at 
     least one non-profit organization to develop and implement 
     performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems 
     in high-need schools: Provided further, That such 
     performance-based compensation systems must consider gains in 
     student academic achievement as well as classroom evaluations 
     conducted multiple times during each school year among other 
     factors and provide educators with incentives to take on 
     additional responsibilities and leadership roles: Provided 
     further, That up to 5 percent of such funds for competitive 
     grants shall be available for technical assistance, training, 
     peer review of applications, program outreach, and evaluation 
     activities.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Foxx

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Foxx:
       Page 82, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 82, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 84, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 84, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for the 
Fund for the Improvement of Education by $10 million, while increasing 
IDEA State grants by $10 million.
  Transferring these funds will ensure that Congress does not create a 
new unauthorized $10 million grant program for ``full-service community 
schools'' with the Fund for the Improvement of Education, a program 
which was specifically mentioned in the committee report. We should not 
be using appropriations bills to authorize programs.
  It appears that language in the committee report for this program has 
been taken from legislation introduced by the House majority leader, as 
well as in the Senate by Senator Nelson. Their bill would create a $200 
million full-service community school grant program.
  What exactly is a full-service community school? According to the 
underlying funding bill, it's a ``public elementary or secondary school 
that coordinates with community-based organizations and public-private 
partnerships to provide students, their families and the community 
access to comprehensive services.''
  The language specifies that the grants must be used to provide not 
fewer than three services selected from a variety of selective 
services, including community service, service learning opportunities, 
nutrition services, job training and career counseling, primary health 
and dental care, mental health counseling services adult language, 
including instruction in English as a Second Language.
  I am concerned we are moving schools away from focusing on the 
basics, academics. Our schools still have room for much improvement in 
ensuring all students are proficient in the basics of math, reading, 
writing, science and history. So why is the Federal Government sending 
money to turn schools into social, medical, educational job training 
hubs?
  I am also concerned about the unsettling prospect of having adult, 
nonfamily members of the community regularly visiting school grounds 
for job training and medical and mental health services when young 
children and teenagers are present. Combining schools with health care 
and other social services for community residents poses a danger to 
students that would need to be addressed in any future legislation.
  Since 1965, Congress has increased the role of the Federal Government 
in public primary and secondary education, as well as in higher 
education. If history has taught us anything about education, it's that 
the proliferation of Federal programs and regulations has not improved 
education. In a time where the Federal Government continues to spend 
more and more and expand its reach with very limited results, I 
question the need for us to meddle in affairs such as this.
  With this in mind, my amendment would transfer $10 million from the 
Fund for the Improvement of Education to IDEA grants. These grants help 
States and localities pay for the rising cost of special education for 
6.9 million children with disabilities.
  While my amendment adds only a small amount to these State grants, 
any amounts are helpful in fully funding Congress' commitment to fund 
40 percent of the average per-pupil excess cost of educating students 
with disabilities.
  IDEA part B grants to States is funded at only $11.29 billion, which 
is $7 billion or 41 percent below the 2007 authorized level of $19.2 
billion. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to ensure that 
any full-service community school legislation goes forward through the 
proper authorizing process, not through the appropriations process, and 
we put money where it's desperately needed, as we all know from hearing 
from the schools in our districts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. In reserving my point of order, I would like to ask a 
question of the gentlewoman. Does she have a score from the CBO?
  Ms. FOXX. I do. We would actually save $1 million with this 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. So the CBO indicates that the amendment is outlay neutral?
  Ms. FOXX. Yes.
  Mr. OBEY. If that is the case, then I withdraw my reservation.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The reservation of a point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. There are two problems I have with this amendment. First of 
all, it seeks to cut $10 million from an item in the bill which is 
meant to establish full-service community schools. These are supposed 
to be schools which test the concept of making schools neighborhood 
centers which include early childhood education, remedial education, 
academic enrichment activities, programs that promote parental 
involvement and family literacy, mentoring and other youth development 
programs. It's meant to be a much more holistic educational experience 
than is usually found in an individual school. We believe that that 
deserves an opportunity to be tested.
  Secondly, I would simply say that, lest this amendment be portrayed 
as an amendment that does anything significant for special education, I 
want to point out that this is an especially marginal amendment. The 
damage it does to the neighborhood school concept that we are trying to 
explore in the bill is far larger than the negligible impact that it 
has on the special education program.
  What I mean by that is this: Special education is an $11 billion 
program. This amendment adds $10 million to it. It is another one of 
those symbolic amendments which I think ought to be placed in context.
  The committee has already increased this account by $500 million. It 
is $800 million above the President, and it seems to me that, by 
comparison, the amendment is demonstrably but a blip on the radar 
screen in comparison to the funds that we have already put in this 
bill.
  Now, I know that many of these amendments can be offered, and they 
can be converted into nice, sweetly packaged 30-second TV spots which 
tend to leave the impression that a Member has done something 
significant. Unfortunately, this amendment doesn't fit into that 
category of being

[[Page 19565]]

significant, and it may make a very good television spot, but I doubt 
it's going to be very meaningful in the scheme of things.
  I would ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support 
of this amendment. I hadn't intended to, but I think it's a good 
amendment, partially because it provides additional funds to IDEA.
  In committee, we amended the bill to add $335,000,000 more to IDEA. 
This is a small one, but it's helpful. More importantly, this concept 
of community schools is a wonderful concept. But that's what we have 
committees for, committees of jurisdiction, to vet these ideas.
  In my hometown of Syracuse, there's lots of talk about community 
schools. Remembering that primary and secondary education is a 
responsibility of the municipality, the county and the State and not of 
the Federal Government is an important thing to consider. A community 
school in Syracuse is very different than a community school in 
Maryland or California or Arizona.
  But more importantly than all of that is that our schools, especially 
our inner-city schools, are having a very difficult job graduating the 
kids now. In fact, many of our urban schools aren't even graduating 50 
percent of the kids who start in ninth grade. That's a fact. No one is 
comfortable with that fact, but it is a fact.
  So why would you provide or require or suggest to a school that is 
already only attaining 50 percent of its responsibility with its 
primary task, why would you give them additional work? Why would you 
give them additional responsibilities? Maybe there's good reason for 
that, but there is certainly a committee structure. The education 
committee has plenty of experts and staff to try to determine the best 
way to approach this.
  I admire the author of the concept's ingenuity, but this really needs 
to go through committee to have proper authorization. Absent that, I 
think this is a good idea. Ten million dollars will go into a program 
that everyone knows needs more money, that we are putting additional 
burdens on those local school districts by not providing this money. It 
would provide some relief to them to meet their primary task of 
educating our kids. So I think this is a very good amendment. I 
strongly support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time to the author of this amendment 
such time as she may consume.
  Ms. FOXX. I appreciate the ranking member for yielding time to me.
  I want to say that I am very troubled by the fact that the terms that 
are being used here that we want to test, creating holistic educational 
experiences, that's one of the problems, again, with the Federal 
Government being involved in the education process. It is not up to us 
to be doing that. The testing needs to be done at the local level.
  There are programs. North Carolina has a tremendous number of 
programs where it's working through community centers, sometimes at 
schools, most of the time not, where they are trying to do these kinds 
of things. We don't need to be funding this at the Federal level. If 
the States want to do it, they ought to be doing it.
  I think that calling this a symbolic amendment is a denigration it 
doesn't deserve. This is a serious amendment. We are violating our 
processes. We are violating what we say we are going to do here. 
Appropriations bills should not be authorizing bills. We separate that 
process.
  I have not been here very long, and I know I don't know all the rules 
and the way things are done, but I noticed that the chairman reserved a 
point of order, but they were able to the waive points of orders in 
order to authorize. So when the majority wants to break the rules, it 
easily breaks the rules to try to accomplish what it wants to 
accomplish when it can't accomplish it the other way. So I am very 
concerned about it. I think this is a very valid amendment done very 
seriously.
  I haven't sat over here for a couple of hours and haven't worked on 
this for many hours to think that it is frivolous or simply symbolic. 
It's an important thing. And I don't appreciate the amendment being 
denigrated in the way it has been denigrated by the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this concept of community schools Mr. Walsh 
correctly refers to is a concept that is present in many States, many 
communities.

                              {time}  1345

  My wife Judy was the supervisor of early childhood education in 
Prince Georges County, Maryland, just down the road. She started a 
concept in our county of full service schools, community schools. There 
are now 24 Judy Centers in the State of Maryland. Maryland has paid for 
them, started them.
  The problem with a full service community school, as Judy found out 
and as all of us know, is the turf battles. The turf battles are 
ferocious. Some people have made fun of the fact that it takes a 
village to raise a child. Now, obviously, hopefully every child has a 
good parent. But we have many services available to make sure that our 
young people, when they get to the ninth grade, are ready to succeed in 
the ninth and 10th and 11th and 12th grades. But those services in many 
communities are discordant and not coordinated. So the concept of a 
full service or a community school is to bring together services, not 
in a forced way, but in a cooperative way.
  Now, the gentlelady refers to the authorization on the appropriation 
bill. I know that the ranking member is shocked by that ever happening. 
I remember, perhaps before the gentlelady got here, when Bill Frist 
added 40 pages in the dead of night of authorizing language to an 
appropriation bill just a few years ago to preclude insurance company 
liability.
  The fact of the matter is this $10 million in NIE is to encourage, 
facilitate cooperation, not to mandate spending more money; but to 
encourage educators, social services, child care providers, other 
services, as they have in the State of New York. I have visited some of 
them in the city.
  So I would hope that we would not take this $10 million and add it to 
an $11 billion program. A critically important program, the gentlelady 
is absolutely correct, but it is a program that is funded $800 million 
more than President Bush asked for by this bill. And in order to add 
that $10 million to an $11 billion program, you will undermine the 
effort to see if we can create cooperation, in effect magnifying the 
role of each as they cooperate with one another. That is the concept, 
and it is a concept that works.
  Superintendent Grasmick in my State has talked about this concept all 
over this country. I have talked about it to Secretary Spelling; I have 
talked about it to their predecessors. In fact, we did pass a bill 
through the House that didn't make it through conference which Lynn 
Woolsey had sponsored which had this concept. It is a concept that the 
Education and Labor Committee is now considering. They may go much 
broader than this.
  But this is what NIE is all about. It is trying to facilitate better 
ways to deliver education to our children. And I remind the gentleman 
from New York, who is my friend and I am pleased to see him as the 
ranking member, but we do participate significantly in the education of 
children in this country, particularly children at risk. That is what 
this attempts to do as well, to magnify the services available, 
coordinate them, bring them together so they are accessible by people 
who can't get in their car at $3.15, and drive from this place to the 
other place to the other place to get services for their children.

[[Page 19566]]

  So I would hope, ladies and gentlemen of this House, that we would 
reject this amendment. I thank the chairman for including this 
provision in the bill, and I would hope that the amendment would be 
rejected.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. FERGUSON. I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for yielding to me. And I want to say 
again that I am sorry that my colleague from Maryland is not aware of 
this really excellent program that exists in North Carolina called 
Smart Start, which did this back in 1995, where we pulled together 
these different agencies to work together on this very good concept. 
But it is being done in States without Federal dollars, and I would 
urge the people in Maryland to look at that concept and deal with it.
  I want to say that I am very concerned again, not by your comments 
but by the comments of the chairman, about the denigration of the 
allocation of $10 million as negligible. That is the attitude of people 
from Washington that adding $10 million is negligible. That is hard for 
people who are paying their taxes every day to understand that. I am 
sure that the teachers and parents of special needs students who are 
getting just a small percentage of money already authorized by this 
Federal Government to do what we are demanding that they do, they are 
not getting all their money.
  Now, I commend the majority party for increasing the spending in this 
area, but it is the biggest complaint that I get when I talk to people 
about what is happening in education and the Federal role. So I think 
we need to put every dime we can possibly find into authorized programs 
already that are not spending what they should be spending. And I would 
say, I find it hard to look in the eyes of the parent of a special 
needs child or the teacher of a special needs child and say: We had an 
opportunity to give you 10 million more dollars and it was turned down; 
because they are there, and they need it.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to the 
majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I would simply say to the gentlelady, it so happens I have 
known two of your Governors pretty well, once as a young person, Terry 
Sanford, and as a contemporary of Jim Hunt, who was a good friend of 
mine for the last 45 years.
  You mentioned the programs that you have in North Carolina. Bobby 
Etheridge, of course one of the former superintendents of your State's 
system, your State has been an innovative, progressive leader in 
education and Jim Hunt has been one of the educational leaders in our 
country. I have no doubt, because I have worked with him over the last 
20 years that I have been in Congress on various programs while he was 
Governor and since then, that, yes, you have moved ahead in North 
Carolina, but you have also done it in partnership with many Federal 
programs. I know that because I have worked with your Governor on that. 
I simply wanted to make that point. Again, this is a partnership. And I 
thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman, Mr. Obey, in a colloquy regarding strengthening of the 
Children's Graduate Medical Education Program, as well as enhancing 
Federal support for health information technology.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman yield for that purpose?
  Ms. ESHOO. I do.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. The question is, have we disposed of the 
pending amendment before the Committee?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. We have not.
  Mr. WALSH. Is this statement by the gentlelady from California in 
regards to this amendment?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Apparently not.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I would respectfully request that we return to 
the amendment before we continue the conversation.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has begun.
  Ms. ESHOO. I am sorry, I didn't hear.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. However, the 
gentlewoman has begun her statement. At the conclusion of her remarks, 
the Chair will put the question on the amendment.
  Ms. ESHOO. I will be as brief as possible so that we can get back to 
what was being debated.
  I want to thank Mr. Obey for including $307 million for the 
Children's Graduate Medical Education Program. While this amount is 
less than the $330 million authorized by Congress last year, it is 
obviously a good improvement over the levels proposed by the President, 
which is $110 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, which 
is $200 million.
  The reason I wanted to have the colloquy is to go on record, urge the 
chairman to do everything he can to not only maintain the House's 
funding level when the bill goes to conference, and perhaps even be 
able to do more.
  I think that we all have a healthy understanding of what the 
Children's Hospitals GME represents. It has been an outstanding 
success. It is important to note that Children's Hospitals receive 80 
percent of what other teaching hospitals receive on average from 
Medicare's Graduate Medical Education Program.
  In recent years, Children's Hospitals have been able to sustain and 
improve their training programs so that the shortages of pediatric 
specialists in our country can be addressed. The program has also 
indirectly strengthened Children's Hospitals as premier pediatric 
centers of excellence. They are the safety net for low-income children 
in their communities and they are the centers of pediatric research as 
well.
  So I want to thank the chairman for everything he has done to fully 
fund the program this year, and I would be happy to yield to him.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say I agree with the gentlelady from 
California. The Children's GME is integral to ensuring a stable future 
for our children's hospitals and is a sound investment in children's 
health. I certainly will do everything I can to ensure that sufficient 
funding levels for Children's Hospitals GME are retained in conference.
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman. I also want to raise the issue about 
my strong support for increased funding for Health Information 
Technology, often referred to as Health IT.
  The adoption, I believe, of electronic health record systems I think 
will have a profound effect on the health care delivery in our country. 
I believe it will enhance patient safety, reduce medical errors, and 
improve the quality of care.
  For several years, the administration and the Congress have not 
committed enough funds to make this promise a reality in our country. I 
recognize the continued commitment to HIT that is in this year's Labor-
HHS bill, $61 million, and I think we need to make a greater investment 
to make this a reality because it not only needs to be launched 
effectively, because we have to have interoperability, and without it 
we really won't have a Health IT system.
  So I want to thank the committee, most especially the chairman, for 
weeding through what is really a difficult bill to put together because 
we are constrained moneywise. But if there is any opportunity at 
conference, I want to urge optimizing that possibility.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank my colleague from 
California for bringing this important matter to the attention of the 
House. The gentlelady is a strong advocate for the establishment of a 
robust and interoperable health information technology network, and I 
want to work

[[Page 19567]]

with her. I will be pleased to consider this funding need should 
additional funds become available in conference.
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.

                              {time}  1400


                Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Shadegg

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I was standing and I have an amendment that goes to page 
82.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have the amendment at the 
desk?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Yes, I do.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman was on his feet when the Clerk was 
reading.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 49 offered by Mr. Shadegg:
       Page 82, line 6 after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,695,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
read, not designated.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this is a simple and 
straightforward amendment. It is premised on the notion, not that the 
program doesn't work, but rather, that when the task is finished, the 
funding should stop.
  This program, the Advanced Credentialing Program, was established by 
the Congress to develop teacher standards and to have those standards 
developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards or 
other nationally certification or credentialing organizations. That 
task has, in fact, been accomplished.
  The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a private 
body, has received more than $180 million from the Department of 
Education since 1991. These Federal funds supported the development and 
implementation of the certification standards and assessments in 24 
different academic fields. That task has now been completed.
  In addition, since the legislation called for such standards to be 
established by other nationally recognized certification or 
credentialing organizations, the Department awarded $32.8 million in a 
5-year grant to the American Board for the Certification of Teacher 
Excellence. That board will receive the final year of its funding in 
Fiscal Year 2007.
  By Fiscal Year 2008, the American Board for the Certification of 
Teacher Excellence will have successfully completed the development and 
implementation of its teacher credential system. As a result, State and 
local teaching organizations, educational agencies, will have not one 
but two different sets of standards to pick from, one developed by the 
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and one developed by 
the American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence. I 
believe when the task has been completed, it is important that we stop 
the funding.
  I want to make clear that the purpose of this amendment is not to 
eliminate funding for States to encourage teachers to receive advanced 
degrees or to assist them in that endeavor.
  My wife is a teacher. She has a master's degree. She received her 
advanced credentialing in order to improve her education and her 
ability to serve as a teacher, but the task has now been accomplished.
  The Department, as well, supports giving States and districts more 
tools to help them identify and retain effective teachers. Indeed, the 
2008 budget requests $2.8 billion for the improving teacher quality 
State grants program and an additional $199 million for the teacher 
incentive program. These programs combined provide flexible sources for 
State and local education agencies to use to improve their teacher 
recruitment and retention systems according to their own needs.
  The goal of this amendment is to simply acknowledge that the creation 
of the standards has been accomplished and accomplished by two 
different entities, the National Board for Professional Teaching 
Standards (NBPTS) and the American Board for the Certification of 
Teacher Excellence.
  In addition, I would note for anyone concerned about this that the 
effects of the NBPTS credential system on student achievement have been 
somewhat mixed. There are studies that show it has been somewhat 
helpful. However, the studies have found the positive effects are very 
small and that they are neither large enough nor consistent enough to 
justify further Federal funding beyond that which is provided in the 
existing $2.8 billion for improving teacher quality State grants, and 
the $199 million that I already referred to in teacher incentive fund 
training.
  I do wish, at this point, that I had reallocated the $10.7 million 
that would be saved by this amendment to Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA). Having listened to the discussion of the last 
bill, I note that IDEA is underfunded. It has all been underfunded, and 
I wish that I had cast this amendment in that fashion. I did not do so 
but I, nonetheless, would encourage its adoption and would encourage, 
perhaps, those at conference to take that $10.7 million and to add it 
to IDEA funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point 
of order?
  Mr. OBEY. I withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I can't believe my ears. I just thought I 
heard the gentleman say that IDEA was underfunded. I'm shocked. I've 
never heard the gentleman say that anything was underfunded before.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman yield?
  I certainly believe IDEA is underfunded. I know in my school 
districts in my schools there is a crying need.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me take back my time because I only have 5 minutes. But 
I agree with the gentleman. Many programs are underfunded in this bill.
  Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that I would certainly support the 
gentleman's amendment if I thought that we had all of the excellent 
teachers in the country that we need, but the fact is we don't.
  This is not a program that should be cut back or eliminated. This is 
a program that works. This is a program which helps teach trainers to 
go through rigorous certification processes. They are star teachers. 
They go back to their school districts, they become lead teachers in 
their schools, and I hardly think that that is damaging the national 
interest.
  And I must also confess a certain amount of confusion, because just 
about an hour ago we were told by a series of Members that we should 
support the teacher incentive program because we needed to incentivize 
teachers to increase their skills. And now we have a program that does 
just that and identifies teachers based on merit, and we're told we 
ought to cut back the program.
  Let me simply say that if you take a look at the way this program has 
been

[[Page 19568]]

evaluated, the National Boards for Professional Teaching Standards 
tells us that this program raises student achievement. It inspires 
deeper learning. It improves teacher practice. It creates 
transformative professional development, and it helps these schools to 
retain teachers.
  Let me say that there is a tiny increase in this program. That 
increase is aimed at helping teachers from low-income schools get 
master teacher certification.
  We've been told for years that the toughest thing to do in education 
is to get your best teachers to go into your poorest schools or the 
schools in your poorest neighborhoods. This is a program that's 
effective in doing that. We ought not to throw the baby out with the 
bath water.
  I would urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


              Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

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

       Amendment No. 50 offered by Mr. Westmoreland:
       Page 82, line 6 after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $23,533,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, and I would ask 
unanimous consent that the Clerk read the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. We've 
listened to the other side talk about, I guess, some of us maybe being 
disingenuous or doing different things with this amendment. And the 
gentleman from Ohio talked about a fringe group over here, and I'm 
happy to be part of that fringe group. The Republican Study Committee I 
guess is who he was talking about in that we're trying to look after 
the taxpayers' money.
  For the past 12 years, I would have to admit, although I've only been 
here three of those years, that we spent too much money. We expanded 
government too much, and we didn't do what we should have been doing. 
But it's good, because I think a lot of people woke up after the last 
election and realized that we had lost our brand of being fiscal 
conservatives, being responsible with the taxpayers' money, because 
it's not our money, it's their money, they work hard for it every day, 
and that we need to be more responsible with it.
  And I think that the President got that message. And in this budget, 
he cut the funding for the writing instruction. It's $23.5 million, or 
a very, very small percentage of the $152 billion budget that the 
majority party is offering for this appropriations bill, which is $11 
billion more than the President offered. And, you know, it doesn't hurt 
to zero a program out if it's not working or not doing its job, or if 
the money can better be spent somewhere else in a different program, 
something that has more advantages for more people.
  Under titles II, III and IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, the Federal Government provides extensive support to States and 
operates numerous programs designed to enhance teacher recruiting and 
training.
  While many of these programs provide important services, States would 
be well served to receive this funding in the form of a block grant 
with increased flexibility to use these funds on the programs most 
needed in that State.
  Mr. Chairman, I know from talking to my local school board 
superintendents and school board members that they certainly agree with 
that. No Child Left Behind, while working in a lot of situations, has 
cost them more money, really, to implement those programs than they 
receive in Federal dollars because a lot of that money is, has to be 
spent in a certain area.
  This would be an opportunity that we could take this very, very small 
amount out. The President recommended a zero. It was funded at $21.7 
million last year, so there's been a 10 percent increase this year, and 
just zero the program out.
  And so it's a pretty simple amendment. It puts back the writing 
instruction program back to zero, where the President put it, and I 
hope that my colleagues will finally decide, let's vote for one thing 
that actually cuts something.
  I know one appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman, we were talking about, 
and I believe the chairman of the committee said they had cut 250 
programs. And I asked for a list of those programs. Haven't received it 
yet. So, hopefully this will encourage him to support this amendment, 
because it is zeroing out a program, and also get me the list of the 
other 250 programs that this Congress has cut so far this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman that his party 
did not lose the last election because they did too much for education. 
Rather, they lost the last election, in my view, because the public so 
clearly understood that their party preferred to put spending $57 
billion in tax cuts for people who make over $1 million to providing 
decent funding for education.

                              {time}  1415

  And the public understood that the other party preferred to spend 
$600 billion in Iraq rather than spending a small portion of that at 
home for science and health care and the like to meet some of the needs 
of our own people. That is why the gentleman's party lost the last 
election, not because they did too much for education but because they 
were out of touch.
  Having said that, let me simply say that this amendment eliminates 
funding for the National Writing Project. I would simply point out that 
this program supports teacher training programs so that teachers can 
help students write effectively and school districts match those funds 
dollar for dollar.
  I must say all of us have large turnover of our staff here on Capitol 
Hill. The number one problem that I have in my office and the number 
one problem I have heard so many other Members comment on is that when 
young people come in and interview for jobs, they don't know how to 
write.
  When both of my sons went away to college, at least my oldest son 
asked me, ``Dad, what do you think is the most important thing to 
learn?''
  And I said, I think the most important thing to learn is how to write 
because if you can write clearly, it means you are thinking clearly, 
and if you are thinking clearly, it means you can communicate. And I 
would say that I don't think that this country is over blessed with a 
number of great writers. I also must say if you listen to some of the 
congressional speeches written by our staffs, you would certainly agree 
that we need more help in writing in this country.
  So let me simply say that I understand that we are engaged in a 
little filibuster by amendment. But nonetheless, I wanted to take this 
time to simply urge Members to vote against this amendment. If you 
believe in raising the quality of discourse in this country, you have 
to start with writing, and that is what this program tries to do.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 19569]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Safe Schools and Citizenship Education

       For carrying out activities authorized by subpart 3 of part 
     C of title II (20 U.S.C. 6711 et seq.), part A of title IV 
     (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), subpart 2 of part D of title V (20 
     U.S.C. 7245), subpart 3 of part D of title V (20 U.S.C. 
     7247), and subpart 10 of part D of title V (20 U.S.C. 7261 et 
     seq.) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (``ESEA''), $714,075,000, of which $300,000,000 shall become 
     available on July 1, 2008, and remain available through 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That $300,000,000 shall be 
     available for subpart 1 of part A of title IV of ESEA (20 
     U.S.C. 7111 et seq.) and $222,335,000 shall be available for 
     subpart 2 of part A of title IV of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7131 et 
     seq.), of which $5,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be for the Project School Emergency Response 
     to Violence program to provide education-related services to 
     local educational agencies, and institutions of higher 
     education, in which the learning environment has been 
     disrupted due to a violent or traumatic crisis: Provided 
     further, That $158,422,000 shall be available to carry out 
     part D of title V of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7241 et seq.): Provided 
     further, That of the funds available to carry out subpart 3 
     of part C of title II of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6711 et seq.), up to 
     $12,072,000 may be used to carry out section 2345 (20 U.S.C. 
     6715) and $3,025,000 shall be used by the Center for Civic 
     Education to implement a comprehensive program to improve 
     public knowledge, understanding, and support of the Congress 
     and the State legislatures.


             Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Brady of Texas

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

       Amendment No. 52 offered by Mr. Brady of Texas:
       Page 83, lines 14 and 15, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced $72,674,000)''.

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the Carol White Physical Education 
Program was named after a longstanding and dedicated public servant 
here on Capitol Hill. Carol White, a long-time Chief of Staff for 
Senator Ted Stevens, who aptly named this program because they have 
dedicated their lives to trying to make this country better inside our 
schools and out. This program provides the funding basically to help 
schools initiate and expand their physical education programs, which is 
just a great goal, and many of the grants have been used for playground 
equipment on schools.
  Physical education is important. I think we all know that. Our young 
people are becoming more and more static between video games and 
television shows and sometimes lack of outdoor recreation. We are 
seeing more obesity. It is important that PE be part of an integral 
curriculum of our schools. In fact, our States and local districts have 
targeted PE as an area that they want to reintroduce back to the 
curriculum for our children.
  The only reason I raise this program up is to have some type of 
thoughtful debate about who should fund PE programs and, more 
importantly, what should our Federal priorities be.
  I ask that because I know that today we are running a deficit. We 
have a major national debt. I know that every dollar that we spend 
above the deficit, and we will run a deficit again with the budget we 
are discussing today, but I know that every dollar that goes to our 
public debt is picked up by these same children we are trying to help 
where it will result in a tax increase for families. So it seems right 
and proper that we scrutinize every program regardless of how much we 
might admire the person it is named after.
  This program has been rated by the program assessment rating tool as 
the results not demonstrated at this point. I imagine that is why the 
President did not request funding for it. Like the chairman, who has 
identified apparently 200 or more programs for dismissal, we have to 
make tough choices.
  What we are seeking here is a simple question. In our rural schools 
and our smaller schools, they have the money to buy playground 
equipment or to build a swingset for kids. What they don't have is 
money to hire a special needs teacher. What they don't have is money to 
help kids read and write at grade level. What they don't have is money 
to help try to prevent the dropouts that are hitting our schools and a 
case where nearly half of our minorities in eighth grade or ninth and 
graduating to 12th grade. It just seems to me that from the Federal 
funding level, our local schools can afford a playground set. What we 
need to help them with is what they can't afford, which are teachers to 
help our special needs kids; equipment to help our kids with 
disabilities; teachers in science, in math, and technology subjects; 
food for kids who come to school hungry. Despite the merits and the 
goal which are so laudable for this program, it seems to me that we 
ought to set our highest priorities to help schools with what they 
cannot do today, which really is to help our kids read and write, to 
help our special needs students reach their potential, to try to stop 
this horrendous dropout rate in America.
  So I would propose that we, as the President suggested, not fund this 
program, reserve those resources. And, again, these are tough choices 
you always have to make through the process. It is not much fun either 
way. I am sure the chairman did not delight in cutting any of the 
programs that he had proposed. It is just a way that we try to get 
closer to a balanced budget and try to prioritize where we fund our 
schools and our kids and, again, try to make the greatest use of every 
tax dollar we have.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is 
not a healthy amendment.
  As you pointed out, our children are more complacent than ever. 
Sometimes it is because of video games. In some parts of the country, 
it is because the streets aren't safe. In other parts of the country, 
it is because children are latchkey and moms and dads want to know 
where they are while they are working. So obesity is becoming a huge 
problem in this country. And in order for children to really be ready 
and prepared to learn, they have to be physically fit. They go 
together. I taught school. They go hand in hand.
  The CDC has made childhood obesity and the obesity that is already 
occurring with adults a challenge for our country to get ahold of if we 
are going to be competitive, if we are going to have a healthy 
workforce, and if we are going to control our health care costs. What 
has happened with the No Child Left Behind Act, it was under funded by 
this Congress. It didn't come up with the dollars that the President 
promised. So school district after school district after school 
district, in order to balance their ledger with this unfunded mandate, 
have been cutting arts and they have been cutting physical education.
  Now, I am pleased to hear that in your district you are able to 
maintain a phys ed teacher and you are able to maintain the things that 
you need to keep your children fit. But district after district has 
been cutting phys ed in order to pay for the unfunded tests in No Child 
Left Behind. And childhood obesity is a problem.
  This might be the first generation that does not live as long as 
their parents. Now, my children and the children in my neighborhood, I 
would like to see them not only outlive me but outlive me in a very, 
very healthy lifestyle. And physical education is part of learning, 
mind and body, in order to be productive and healthy. This is going to 
keep America healthy, but it is also going to keep our health care 
costs down, which we know we have to get under control.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 19570]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring to the House the 
following facts: We have been at this bill now for the better part of 
yesterday. We have been on this bill since 10:30 this morning, and we 
have been trying to negotiate a unanimous consent agreement so that 
Members might be able to leave here tomorrow night. I know there is a 
CODEL of Members going to Iraq but I want to put them on notice now. I 
doubt very much that you are going to make it unless you want to miss a 
lot of votes because as things are developing, I am told that right 
now, because of the insistence that a number of amendments, which we 
have heard time and time again, will still be subjected to 40 minutes' 
debate time even though there are five similar amendments, each of 
which will take about 40 minutes. When you calculate it all, it comes 
out to about 800 minutes of debate time. That means roughly 13 hours. 
By the time you account for slippage, the time it takes for Members to 
be recognized, the time it takes for them to find their amendments, you 
have to add about another 5 hours plus your voting time.
  What that means is that if we continue until 1 o'clock this morning, 
it will still probably be required for Members to be here until about 8 
o'clock or later tomorrow night, which means that we will finish just 
in time for you to all miss your planes.
  I just wanted you to know that so that if you think that you would 
like to see another result, you talk to individuals who right now seem 
to think that 40 minutes' time on a repetitive amendment is more 
important than ending a filibuster by amendment.
  Two years ago when this bill was on the floor, it took about 12 
hours. At this rate it will take about three times that amount of time. 
So I want Members who are coming up to me asking me about whether they 
are going to be able to make their planes or their CODELs, I want them 
to understand that if they miss them, I want them to know who to blame 
because it is not going to be me.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the whole 5 
minutes. I just want to make one point.
  The gentlelady from Minnesota, I believe, who was just speaking, I 
want to concur with a portion of her remarks with, A, the remarks with 
regard to the physical problem with childhood obesity in the country, 
and that is of a concern nationally. And, B, the problem that she set 
out with regard to NCLB not funding to the level necessary so that 
school districts across the country are put in what you might call a 
catch-22 situation.
  And a catch-22 is, okay, do we, A, comply with NCLB? In which case we 
spend a lot of our own money on tests, fourth and 8th grade reading and 
math tests; or, B, if you don't comply with it, then of course you get 
written up in the local newspaper because your school failed, or your 
school didn't do very well on the test and you've become an 
underperforming school. And, instead, provide the funds where you would 
like to put them, which may well be in physical education programs.
  So I concur with her comments on that and suggest that the solution 
to the problem may be multifaceted. Part of it is the gentleman's 
amendment right here can be one aspect to address it. And I support the 
gentleman's amendment to make sure that the dollars that are coming 
from the Federal Government go to those programs that are effectively 
getting the job done, including the issue of physical education and 
childhood obesity and what have you. And just like all the other 
amendments, I'm sure the gentleman will concur that you want to make 
sure that the money goes to those programs that really accomplish 
something, and are not duplicative.
  The other aspect of the problem, however, is with NCLB and the burden 
that they put on the schools as saying, do I do this or do I do that; 
do I comply with NCLB, or do I do what I really want to do locally? And 
I think the answer to that is to say this: NCLB is just too top town, 
ordering the schools, basically you've got to do this or you've got to 
do that when, with all due respect to all the educated, I'll say 
bureaucrats, who are in the U.S. Department of Education and in all due 
respect to the Secretary of Education, a very nice lady and well-
intentioned, the people who really can decide where the dollars can be 
spent best is the teacher in the classroom, the local school board in 
conjunction with the parents. They know whether their school has more 
of a problem in the area of childhood obesity than other schools. I 
find that, from the studies that I've seen, that it is in certain areas 
of States and certain demographic regions as opposed to other ones. 
Those are the people who really know how to decide these things.
  And so I would concur with the gentlelady from Minnesota and suggest 
that the solution is, A, put the money where the dollar should go to 
effectively; and, B, get out from under the rubric of NCLB and just let 
the schools, the teachers, the parents, the local school boards first 
and foremost make those decisions, because they know best.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Obey.
  Mr. OBEY. I'm happy to engage the gentleman.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, Oconaluftee Job Corps Center in Cherokee, 
North Carolina, has served a vital role in providing opportunity and 
direction to the young people of western North Carolina. This center 
has operated under the control of the National Parks Service along with 
the Harpers Ferry Job Corps Center and the Great Onyx Jobs Corps Center 
in Mammoth Cave, Kentucky.
  Mr. Chairman, all 3 of these centers face uncertain future. Earlier 
this year, the Department of Labor closed the Oconaluftee center 
without warning, citing safety concerns. The U.S. Forest Service has 
expressed interest in fixing these safety concerns and reopening the 
Oconaluftee center. The U.S. Forest Service has also proposed to assume 
management of the other 2 centers. The National Park Service has stated 
it is willing to transition these 3 centers to the Forest Service.
  The U.S. Forest Service has a long-standing tradition of quality and 
service in the Appalachian region.
  Mr. Chairman, the Senate Interior Appropriations bill contains 
language directing the Park Service to transfer control of these 3 Job 
Corps centers to the U.S. Forest Service. The community surrounding the 
Oconaluftee Job Corps Center is in favor of this transition.
  Mr. Chairman, would you be willing to work with me to ensure that 
this language is included in the final conference version of this bill?
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to thank the 
gentleman for bringing to our attention the important work that the 
U.S. Forest Service has done in running its 19 Job Corps centers.
  I have reviewed the provision in the Senate Interior Appropriations 
bill. I support retaining the language in conference that directs the 
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to execute an agreement to 
transfer the 3 Job Corps centers currently administered by the National 
Park Service to the U.S. Forest Service.
  I hope the Department of Labor will recognize the merits of this 
approach which I understand was successful in

[[Page 19571]]

another case involving the Mingo Job Corps Center in Missouri several 
years ago.
  I also understand that the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture 
support this approach and expect to work cooperatively with the 
Secretary of Labor on this matter.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your continued cooperation 
and help.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      English Language Acquisition

       For carrying out part A of title III of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6811 et seq.), 
     $774,614,000, which shall become available on July 1, 2008, 
     and shall remain available through September 30, 2009, except 
     that 6.5 percent of such amount shall be available on October 
     1, 2007, and shall remain available through September 30, 
     2009, to carry out activities under section 3111(c)(1)(C) of 
     such Act (20 U.S.C. 6821(c)(1)(C)).

                           Special Education

       For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), $12,310,831,000, of 
     which $5,467,594,000 shall become available on July 1, 2008, 
     and shall remain available through September 30, 2009, and of 
     which $6,641,982,000 shall become available on October 1, 
     2008, and shall remain available through September 30, 2009, 
     for academic year 2008-2009: Provided, That $11,880,000 shall 
     be for the activities authorized by section 674(c)(1)(D) of 
     such Act: Provided further, That the amount for section 
     611(b)(2) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(b)(2)) shall be equal 
     to the lesser of the amount available for that activity 
     during fiscal year 2007, increased by the amount of inflation 
     as specified in section 619(d)(2)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1419(d)(2)(B)) or the percentage increase in the funds 
     appropriated under section 611(i) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1411(i)).


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Ferguson

  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, and I would ask 
that the Clerk read the amendment. We don't have a copy.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ferguson:
       Page 84, line 24, after the aggregate dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 92, line 17, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to 
this important bill that would add an additional $50 million to help 
American students who require special education.
  First, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member for their outstanding efforts to recognize that 
insufficient funds for special education that are so desperately needed 
in this country, I know that in committee they added an additional $335 
million to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But 
having talked to and listened to the stories from teachers and 
educators and parents from my district and elsewhere who work in 
special education in my home State of New Jersey, I believe we must try 
to do even more, and we can certainly do more to recognize the 
important needs of these particular students and these particular 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress, in 1975, enacted the landmark IDEA, the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which mandated that every 
student, including those students who have special needs or 
disabilities will receive a quality and appropriate public education. 
The law also committed the Federal Government to contribute 40 percent 
of special education costs, which are often several times higher than 
the cost of educating other students.
  Washington, of course, has never met this long-standing, but 
unfulfilled, commitment to aid States in paying for special education. 
And as a former teacher, I know firsthand the value of education for 
every student and the importance of ensuring that every child, 
including those who have disabilities, experience the thrill of 
learning.
  School administrators and teachers and parents all across my district 
tell me that more special education funding is needed to meet the 
growing demands in our schools. As teachers seek to improve academic 
standards and accountability, increased Federal special education 
funding is critically important to help schools to meet these important 
obligations to special education students and their families.
  Washington, as we know, has never met that 40 percent funding 
threshold. And while Federal education funding has increased by more 
than 258 percent between 1995 and 2006, this year it still only 
represents 17.2 percent of the cost of serving students with 
disabilities.
  My home State of New Jersey is a national leader in special 
education. Parents with kids who have special needs and disabilities 
literally move into our State. They come to New Jersey, particularly 
parents who have children with autism, they literally move to New 
Jersey so their kids can enroll in our State's special education 
programs.
  This year alone, New Jersey education officials estimate that they're 
going to spend more than $4 billion in combined Federal, State and 
local funds to administer special ed programs to almost 250,000 
students. Of course there's more than 7 million students nationwide who 
qualify for these programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House for 6\1/2\ years. And I know 
that certain years funding levels for special education have been 
increased and other years they have not been increased. It can be 
fairly characterized as kind of going in fits and starts. Some years 
we've made big and new investments, and other years, frankly, we 
haven't.
  Six years ago, when I first came to this House and to this Chamber, 
the first bill I ever introduced in this body was a bill that would 
fully fund our special education classrooms. I did it with the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). He and I have worked 
together, and I know many others have worked together, to work to fully 
fund our special education classrooms. Indeed, today I remain and I am 
the lead Republican sponsor of legislation right now that would fully 
fund our special education classrooms. But despite many of our best 
efforts, we have not reached that goal yet. And I know that the 
chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and the ranking member, Mr. 
Walsh from New York, they have made extraordinary efforts toward this 
goal as well.
  The spirit of this amendment, my amendment, is to make for this year 
one additional effort to move us in the right direction. Like many of 
you, I've been in these classrooms. I've observed some of our special 
needs kids in action. I've seen the heroic efforts of their parents and 
their teachers and the administrators who work so hard to give them the 
chance at success in life that they really need and deserve.
  We've done some to help them. And this bill today, frankly, does even 
more. But thanks to the efforts of Chairman Obey and Mr. Walsh, and 
others, I really know we are working hard toward this goal. But I 
respectfully ask that we try to do just a little bit more this year, 
and by approving this amendment we will be able to do that.
  I ask my colleagues respectfully to support this important amendment 
so that we can say we did everything we probably could to help these 
students who need that extra chance in life.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve?
  Mr. OBEY. I withdraw my reservation of the point of order and move to 
strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The reservation of the point of order is 
withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply ask the House one question: Do 
we really know everything that we need to know about how children 
learn? Do we really know enough about how children learn to guarantee 
that every child will perform to their maximum ability and potential? I 
think the answer to that is obvious: we obviously don't.
  There is no great political constituency for educational research. 
But you

[[Page 19572]]

know it's a funny thing, in any field of endeavor, research is what 
separates bull gravy from intelligent approaches to issues. That's what 
research does: it helps lead one to a right understanding of a problem.
  What this amendment is, frankly, it's another television ad. What 
this amendment does is to pretend that it does no damage to education 
by eliminating $50 million out of the educational research budget. It 
then puts it into special education.
  We have a lot of posing for holy pictures on this floor by Members 
who are trying to escape the fact that the White House is asking them 
to vote against this bill because the White House claims there is too 
much money in the bill when, in fact, every single one of these 
amendments demonstrates that our own Republican Members know that there 
is not enough money in this bill to fund programs like special 
education unless you make damaging cuts to other portions of the bill. 
And I would suggest that we not do that.
  The President cut special education in his budget by $291 million. We 
have added $800 million in the committee bill to that, and we're $509 
million over last year.
  I would also point out that this is a 10 percent cut, if this 
amendment passes, in the research account. And I would point out that 
this amendment would cut the National Center for Education Statistics, 
which is the premier educational statistical operation in the country. 
This amendment would even cut Federal research funds for special 
education. Do we really know so much about the needs of special 
education kids that we're going to cut that research? I don't think so.
  I think the responsible vote is ``no,'' and I urge a ``no'' vote on 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), the 
     Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), 
     and the Helen Keller National Center Act (29 U.S.C. 1901 et 
     seq.), $3,279,743,000: Provided, That $30,452,000 shall be 
     used for carrying out the Assistive Technology Act of 1998.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again I reserve a point of order, and I would 
ask that the Clerk read the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Page 85, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,279,000)''.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise right now to offer 
what really is a modest amendment with the hopes of returning some 
degree of discipline to the annual appropriation process. When the 
President submitted his budget request, he proposed the elimination of 
a number of programs that were duplicative and unable to demonstrate 
effectiveness or otherwise not worthy of the priority of spending 
American taxpayers' money.
  Generally speaking, with the savings achieved from eliminating 
ineffective programs, we can use it to do things such as pay off the 
debt or support programs that have a proven track record of success. I 
guess that last line I should reiterate: To support programs that 
already have a track record of success.
  As I also often do, I will refer this back and make the analogy back 
to the American families' budget. This is really no different from what 
American families do every month at the proverbial dinner table. Think, 
for example, when it comes to TV. If a family is paying for both cable 
TV and DirecTV, or what I have in my house, Dish TV, chances are that 
they would probably decide which service suits them best as a family, 
and then cut one or both of the other services out. You only need one 
service coming into the house; cable, Direct, Dish or what have you. 
That is what a family would do; prioritize them.
  Mr. Chairman, given the content of our spending bills, if the Federal 
Government were a homeowner and how the Federal Government operates 
now, well, it would pay for both the cable TV, the Dish and DirecTV, 
and the cable at the same time, satellite, all three or four coming 
into the house.
  If the Federal Government were a family and they continued to operate 
as they do right now, they would probably decide that they were going 
to have gas heat in their house and oil heat in their house and 
electric heat in their house and wood heat as well. It would probably 
pay to dig for its own water and have a well in the backyard, all the 
while continuing to pay for city water coming into the house from the 
front.
  That, unfortunately, is how the Federal Government operates itself. I 
think it is time to change. We do a disservice to the American people 
by not eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs. It proves that 
the Federal Government is unaccountable. By increasing the size of the 
U.S. budget, it takes that money, again, out of the family budget by 
sending it to Washington as tax dollars.
  So the amendment that I am offering now would only reduce this by 
$2.3 million, out of a $607 billion appropriation. I used the paper 
before while I was sitting here trying to figure out how much of a 
percentage of that is. That is a .0002 percentage point reduction. I 
think what it does do, more importantly, is to make a statement that 
there are truly areas within the Federal budget where money can be 
saved.
  What my amendment does is restore funding to the level requested in 
the President's budget. The administration zeroed this account out 
because it duplicates other Federal programs. The Migrant and Seasonal 
Farm Workers, the MSFW, Program provides discretionary grants to make 
comprehensive vocational rehabilitation services available to migrant 
and seasonal farm workers with vocational disabilities. Now, if I ended 
right there you would think, well, what is wrong with that?
  Well, according to the OMB, here is the problem: This program serves 
the exact same population and provides the exact same services as 
another separate Federal program already is doing, and that is the 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants Program. The acronym is VR. The 
authorizing legislation for the VR State Grants Program contains 
provisions in it to ensure that State VR agencies must reach out and 
serve all individuals with disabilities within the State. That includes 
minorities and unserved and underserved populations.
  So what this means is that under the MSFW program, which is what we 
are talking about here, the Federal Government is in essence 
micromanaging, if you will, what essentially is a State and local 
government issue that is provided Federal funds through the VR program. 
The VR State Grants Program in the bill already is expanded by $36 
million on top of the increases that were there before in the fiscal 
year 2007 levels.
  So there is little need to be spending an additional $2.3 million on, 
yet again, a separate program that does essentially the same thing. The 
government, you see, does not need to buy both cable TV and satellite 
TV at the same time. The government does not need to be providing 
funding for programs that do the exact same thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman reserve his point of order?

[[Page 19573]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order and would move 
to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if anybody remembers these words: 
``Whatsoever you do for the least of your brethren, you do for Me.'' I 
wonder if anybody remembers those words?
  This amendment is truly amazing to me. This amendment is offered by a 
Member of the House, who, like me, any time he has an ache or a pain or 
a toothache or is having a bad day, can trot down to the Attending 
Physician and have the doctors and the nurses check us over to make 
sure that we are in peachy keen shape. But what does this amendment 
say? This amendment says to some of the poorest people in the country, 
our migrant and our farm workers, sorry, you can't have vocational 
rehabilitation services if you've got a physical problem.
  I would like to ask every Member of this House, have you ever picked 
cucumbers during the summer? Have you ever picked beans? Well, I have. 
I can tell you it is darn hard work. I used to represent a county by 
the name of Waushara County--wall to wall irrigation and crops like 
cucumbers and beans. I used to watch those migrant workers come in and 
work their tails off to get a few bucks.
  Are we really so stingy? Are we really so utilitarian that we are 
willing to say to workers like that, sorry, Members of Congress are 
important, so they can get taken care of whenever they have got a 
physical problem. But oh no, don't you dare waste the taxpayers' money 
when it comes to some poor devil in the migrant stream or when it comes 
to their family or kids.
  You want to vote for this amendment? You go right ahead. Count me 
out.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment, 
because fundamentally what we are charged with doing here is being 
responsible with hard-earned taxpayer money. As the gentleman from New 
Jersey said, it is not responsible to pay for two programs that do the 
same thing, which is why the administration in its review looked at 
this program, which is wonderfully named, perfectly appropriate, has a 
wonderful mission, but the provisions of this program are being 
accomplished elsewhere in the Federal Government.
  Now, it may be hard for the Chair of the Appropriations Committee to 
believe that there is some duplication in the Federal Government, but 
it is not hard for the citizens of the Sixth District of Georgia to 
believe that there is duplication. The name of the program that 
accomplishes this same end is the Vocational Rehabilitation State 
Grants Program.
  The goal of the gentleman from New Jersey, I don't believe, is to 
eliminate the ability to have appropriate programs for migrant and 
seasonal farm workers. That is not the goal at all. The goal is to 
responsibly spend hard-earned taxpayer money in accomplishing the 
appropriate priorities of the Federal Government. So to have anybody 
come to the floor and say that anybody who would support this amendment 
desires to end the programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers is 
simply not true and not the case, and it doesn't appropriately 
represent the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend him for his desire to make certain that we do 
not provide duplicative services which are wasteful, wasteful of hard-
earned taxpayer money.
  I am pleased to yield to my friend from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding.
  To answer the question of the gentleman, yes, I have picked 
vegetables and I have worked on a farm and I have thrown bales of hay 
and I have worked in the sweltering heat of greenhouses picking 
vegetables as well. So, yes, I do have that experience. So, yes, I do 
know of what I speak, to some extent, but never to the extent, I am 
sure, of the chairman or some of what the people go through in these 
situations.
  The chairman also makes reference to words about being stingy. You 
know, it is awfully easy, it is awfully easy, to be a generous 
individual if you are using somebody else's money, and basically that 
is what Congress does every single day of the year. We come to the 
floor with the appropriation bills railing about how much more we are 
spending than last year and saying how generous we are, when in fact 
these are not our dollars. Despite the statement of the gentleman from 
Alaska at the last debate, these are the taxpayers' dollars coming in.
  So it is easy to be generous with other people's money. What we here 
as Members of Congress should therefore do is consider ourselves in a 
position to be wards of that money, protect it and make sure that it 
goes to the most effective places.
  I refer you now to a statement from the administration with reference 
to this program to point out the necessity of cutting the funding here 
and making sure there are funds in similar programs. The administration 
states this: ``This program was established as a demonstration 
project,'' a demonstration project, ``in the mid-1970s, and it is no 
longer needed to demonstrate the benefits of these strategies to serve 
underserved populations such as migrant and seasonal farm workers. Many 
of the same States have received continued funding over the last 30 
years and should be able to effectively serve this population under the 
VR State Grant Program,'' that program that has continued to be funded 
in this underlying legislation, that VR program that sees a $36 million 
or $37 million increase in the funding.
  The gentleman from Georgia, when he speaks to what his constituents 
feel, I wonder what his constituents would feel when they are told that 
we have a demonstration project established back in 1970 and we are 
still following that demonstration project to see whether or not it is 
necessary to run the program.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments. The point about the demonstration project 
precisely gets to the point of so many of these programs. We do a poor 
job as a Federal Government in looking at programs that we put in place 
as pilots or demonstration projects to determine whether or not their 
effectiveness has been met.
  I will have an amendment in a little bit that addresses a program 
whose mission and goal has been achieved and yet it continues to have 
money coming from the Federal Government.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
New Jersey.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to address myself to the 
two gentlemen from New Jersey and from Georgia with a question: Have 
you ever administered and run a school, a title I school, that has an 
ESEA program? No.
  Mr. Chairman, it is really easy to criticize and throw darts at 
projects or even employment, if you will, when you have no idea of what 
you are talking about. I was a principal of two elementary schools. 
Both were title I schools. Both had ESEA funding. The Federal law at 
that time, it is probably still in existence, said that Federal funding 
cannot supplant local funding.
  So if you are saying that this is duplicative, it isn't. It is 
supplementary. It is to enhance the programs that are already existing. 
And the Federal Government has the responsibility to help programs and 
help youngsters in this country.
  It is common knowledge that the State has the primary responsibility 
of education in their States, but the Federal Government has 
responsibility also. And in their good judgment in the

[[Page 19574]]

past when they established the ESEA programs, they saw the need to help 
States fulfill their responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, it is probably easy to poke holes into something you 
don't know anything about. It is probably even easier to criticize 
something when you have no experience and no one is going to challenge 
that.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Chairman, I am here to challenge their premise, and would ask my 
colleagues not to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding. I didn't want to interrupt your comments, so I waited to be 
yielded time here just to respond to your statements through the Chair.
  No, I have not ever administered or run a school. For that matter, I 
imagine that out of the 435 Members of Congress, there are probably one 
or two or three who have ever run or administered a school. And I would 
hate that to be the barometer or the test that we would have to take 
before we could ever propose an amendment, vote on an amendment, or 
even consider legislation that comes before the House. If that were the 
case, programs like the VR program would never be established in the 
first place. If the test is whether a Member of Congress has experience 
in it to propose a new program or expand a program, there is not enough 
educators here or people who have run title I schools to get the 
backing of legislation in the first place. So I would question the 
gentleman's premise.
  Now the gentleman on the other hand questions our basic premise for 
supporting this amendment. Our basic premise is that you don't have to 
actually run the school to know that perhaps the best way to serve a 
particular segment of our country is to make sure that the dollars go 
to programs that are up and running and do serve that program.
  The administration has looked at this and has seen that the program 
in place that we are talking about now has been in place since 1970 as 
a demonstration project. ``Demonstration,'' the word itself connotes 
the fact that this is temporary in nature.
  Since that time, we have the VR program, which I pointed out earlier, 
maybe the gentleman did not hear my testimony, the VR program handles 
these same services. In fact, it says: ``The activities needed to 
successfully serve the migrant and seasonal farmwork population do not 
differ from those that benefit a much wider group of VR consumers.'' 
For example, the outreach activities in churches and community centers 
may be effective for identifying farmworkers with disabilities, what 
this amendment deals with, but they also assist in identifying other 
persons with disabilities who visit these places. The hiring of 
bilingual counselors will assist all consumers who are monolingual in a 
non-English language, whether they are farmworkers or not. And the 
provisions of the transportation services for rural areas will benefit 
all rural residents, whether farmworkers or not.
  The bottom line is, our basic premise is, if you are going to serve a 
segment of the population, in this case individuals with disabilities 
and migrant farmworkers, let's do so, but let's do so with programs 
that are already up and running and have a track record. That is what 
this underlying bill does. It even does it with spending $36 million 
more. I think we can make sure that program runs and eliminate the 
duplicative program.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I will just add one thing 
as I have been listening to the general debate here.
  It seems that quite often on this floor, particularly on the other 
side of the aisle, that we measure how much we care about something by 
how much money we spend on it. If that was the measure of everything, 
Paris Hilton would be the most well-adjusted kid on the planet.
  It is not just how much we spend, but it is whether it is effective. 
It is whether it is duplicative, as we are alleging in the case of this 
program. It is whether it is getting the job done.
  It doesn't do any good for anybody to spend money that is duplicative 
or that isn't effective or that wastes a lot of money along the way. 
That is not good for anybody. So whether it is this program, frankly, 
or any others, we should, in this House and on this floor, realize that 
we are stewards of the taxpayers' money, not just spenders of the 
taxpayers' money, and we should ensure that it is being well spent, not 
just totally spent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities


                 american printing house for the blind

       For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879 (20 U.S.C. 101 et 
     seq.), $17,573,000.


               national technical institute for the deaf

       For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under 
     titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $60,757,000, of which $1,705,000 shall 
     be for construction and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That from the total amount available, the 
     Institute may at its discretion use funds for the endowment 
     program as authorized under section 207 of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 4357).


                          gallaudet university

       For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model 
     Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of 
     Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education 
     of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), 
     $109,952,000: Provided, That from the total amount available, 
     the University may at its discretion use funds for the 
     endowment program as authorized under section 207 of such Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 4357).

                 Career, Technical, and Adult Education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 
     (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the Adult Education and Family 
     Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 9201 et seq.), and subpart 4 of part 
     D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (``ESEA'') (20 U.S.C. 7249), $2,046,220,000, of which 
     $1,247,220,000 shall become available on July 1, 2008, and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2009, and of 
     which $791,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2008, 
     and shall remain available through September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That of the amounts made available for the Carl D. 
     Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, 
     $8,000,000 is for the postsecondary career and technical 
     institutions under section 117 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 2327): 
     Provided further, That of the amounts provided for Adult 
     Education State Grants, $71,622,000 shall be made available 
     for integrated English literacy and civics education services 
     to immigrants and other limited English proficient 
     populations: Provided further, That of the amount reserved 
     for integrated English literacy and civics education, 
     notwithstanding section 211 of the Adult Education and Family 
     Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 9211), 65 percent shall be allocated 
     to States based on a State's absolute need as determined by 
     calculating each State's share of a 10-year average of the 
     United States Citizenship and Immigration Services data for 
     immigrants admitted for legal permanent residence for the 10 
     most recent years, and 35 percent allocated to States that 
     experienced growth as measured by the average of the 3 most 
     recent years for which United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services data for immigrants admitted for legal 
     permanent residence are available, except that no State shall 
     be allocated an amount less than $60,000: Provided further, 
     That of the amounts made available for the Adult Education 
     and Family Literacy Act, $7,000,000 shall be for national 
     leadership activities under section 243 of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9253) and $6,638,000 shall be for the National 
     Institute for Literacy under section 242 of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9252): Provided further, That $93,531,000 shall be 
     available to support the activities authorized under subpart 
     4 of part D of title V of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7249), of which 
     up to 5

[[Page 19575]]

     percent shall become available October 1, 2007, and shall 
     remain available through September 30, 2009, for evaluation, 
     technical assistance, school networks, peer review of 
     applications, and program outreach activities, and of which 
     not less than 95 percent shall become available on July 1, 
     2008, and remain available through September 30, 2009, for 
     grants to local educational agencies: Provided further, That 
     funds made available to local educational agencies under this 
     subpart shall be used only for activities related to 
     establishing smaller learning communities within large high 
     schools or small high schools that provide alternatives for 
     students enrolled in large high schools.


            Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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

       Amendment No. 64 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Page 87, line 1, strike the comma and insert ``and''.
       Page 87, line 3, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through the first comma on line 5.
       Page 87, line 5, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $93,531,000)''.
       Page 88, line 13, strike the colon and all that follows 
     through page 89, line 3, and insert a period.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read 
the amendment because unless she does, we have no idea what the 
amendment is.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The amendment that the Clerk is currently 
reading is not one that I am offering.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, amendment No. 64 is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Student Financial Assistance

       For carrying out subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, part C, 
     and part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
     $17,464,883,000, which shall remain available through 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That, in addition, any amount 
     made available for Academic Competitiveness Grants and 
     National SMART Grants under section 401A of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-1) for fiscal year 
     2007 (in an appropriation for such fiscal year or a preceding 
     fiscal year) that is unobligated at the end of fiscal year 
     2007 shall be available for Pell Grants for the 2008-2009 
     award year.


            Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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

       Amendment No. 65 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Page 89, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $64,987,000)''.

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the confusion. I 
apologize for rising early.
  This amendment is a simple amendment. It addresses the Leveraging 
Educational Assistance Partnership program and would end the funding 
for this program, saving $65 million of hard-earned taxpayer money. The 
rationale is, as the administration has described and as has been 
recommended by the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of 
Higher Education, virtually every State operates programs to a much 
larger degree than the Federal Government that address this very same 
issue.
  As I mentioned just a moment ago when I rose to another amendment, we 
here in Washington enact all sorts of pilot programs and all sorts of 
trial programs, and so very often, in fact probably more often than 
not, we don't go back and look as a Federal Government to see whether 
or not the goal or the mission of those programs has been accomplished.
  Rarely, in fact, I would suggest, do we see if the goal has been 
accomplished. This is one in which there has been great success. The 
mission and the goal of the program has indeed been accomplished. It 
has accomplished its original objective of stimulating all States to 
establish need-based post-secondary student grant programs. However, 
beyond the establishment of these programs, the LEAP program, the 
Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership program itself, does 
little to encourage States to increase their investment in grant aid 
for their neediest of students or effectively targets this aid to 
students who could most benefit from it.
  When we do look, when the Department of Education and when the Office 
of Management and Budget performs its assessment and reviews this 
program, what it says is, at this point, because the mission has been 
accomplished, the results of any further funding for this program are 
clearly not demonstrated. So in an effort to achieve again some fiscal 
responsibility and in an effort to decrease some of the significant 
waste that does occur at the Federal level, I encourage my colleagues 
to accept and vote for the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to figure out what we 
ought to be calling these amendments that have been offered for 2 days. 
I have concluded that we ought to call them the congressional rubber-
stamp amendments, because what is happening is we are seeing amendment 
after amendment offered that would simply return these funding levels 
to the exact level recommended by the President.
  Now I see story after story indicating that a good many of my friends 
on the other side of the aisle are anxious to separate themselves from 
the President these days, but we have evidently a few members of their 
caucus who are eager to embrace virtually every action and every 
thought that comes from the White House. I find that very interesting.
  The President felt we ought to eliminate this program. What does this 
program do? This program provides $60 million in grants to States to 
offer needs-based student scholarships. There are 165,000 students who 
will benefit from this program, getting scholarships of $1,000. I would 
simply ask, does anybody really believe that we are providing enough 
help for working families to send their kids to college?
  The Pell Grant program is the major program upon which we rely in 
order to help students from lower and middle-income families find 
enough money to go on to college. When that program was in its heyday 
in the seventies, it provided over 70 percent of the cost of attending 
a 4-year public university. It provided help in the form of a Pell 
Grant to meet that percentage of the cost. Today, it is down to a 
little over 30 percent of the cost. So we have shifted a huge 
percentage of the cost to working families.
  The President's answer in his budget this year was to move Pell 
Grants from one side of the budget to the other making it, instead of a 
discretionary program, a mandatory program and in the process decided 
he was going to pay for the increase in the Pell Grants by eliminating 
virtually every other student aid program on the books except Pell and 
Work Study.
  I would suggest if you think that is a good idea, go ahead, follow 
the President over the cliff and vote to deny these 165,000 students 
the additional help they need. The money that we invest in student aid 
is returned to this country many times over. We are in a competitive 
world. Over 50 percent of the jobs that will be offered in this country 
in the next 7 years are jobs that will require a higher education, and 
it seems to me instead of running away from that obligation, we ought 
to be embracing it. This is a very bad idea. I urge defeat of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 19576]]


  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
obtaining time, and I appreciate the chairman's comments.
  Again, the purpose of this amendment is to address wasteful spending. 
It is a significant responsibility that we have here in the House to 
make certain that the money we spend, which is hard-earned taxpayer 
money, is spent wisely. I know there is huge animosity on the other 
side of the aisle against the President. I think sometimes that 
animosity actually blinds individuals to some quality work that is 
coming from the administration. There are high-quality people who work 
in the administration, this administration, just like every other 
administration. In fact, there are high-quality people in the 
Department of Education and there are high-quality people in the Office 
of Management and Budget who looked at this problem and said that the 
goals and the mission of this program have, indeed, been accomplished. 
It was a wonderful program, served a grand purpose, but the goals and 
the missions have been accomplished. Consequently, it is appropriate, 
if we are going to be responsible with hard-earned taxpayer money, to 
end a program that has accomplished its mission, accomplished its 
goals, and not continue wasteful Federal spending.

                              {time}  1515

  So I would urge my colleagues, I know that they can be blinded by 
animosity for the President and for the administration, but I would 
urge my colleagues to listen to those hardworking individuals in the 
Federal Government who are looking at these programs and attempting to 
find cost savings for the American public so that we can prioritize on 
other programs.
  That's what this amendment does. It seeks to be responsible with 
hard-earned taxpayer money. I encourage my colleagues to support the 
amendment, and I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  There is none so blind who shall not see. I appreciate the gentleman 
from Georgia for coming to the microphones and asking all of us to open 
our eyes so that we shall see the values of these things, despite the 
personalities otherwise, and I support the gentleman's amendment from 
Georgia.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia 
said we can eliminate the LEAP program because missions have been 
accomplished. The LEAP program is available for the poorest of the poor 
in this country. It's for people whose family incomes are less than 
$20,000. Poverty, unfortunately, still goes on in this country.
  People who make less than $20,000 need help in order to obtain an 
education to allow them to be competitive and allow our country to be 
competitive against other countries which are investing dollar after 
dollar after dollar into educational opportunities for their 
individuals.
  So the mission hasn't been accomplished until we eradicate poverty. 
So I would really urge Members to look closely at the language in the 
LEAP program. It also is matched by State dollars, and I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Arcuri) having assumed the chair, Mr. Capuano, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3043) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________