[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19792-19840]
[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 Committee resumed its sitting.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia

  Mr. LEWIS 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 offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:

                                TITLE VI

                     ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to take any action to finalize (or otherwise 
     implement) provisions contained in the proposed rule 
     published on May 3, 2007, on pages 24680 through 25135 of 
     volume 72, Federal Register, insofar as such provisions 
     propose--
       (1) to alter payments for services under the hospital 
     inpatient prospective payment system under section 1886(d) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C 1395ww(d)) based on use of 
     a Medicare severity diagnosis related group (MS-DRG) system; 
     or
       (2) to implement a prospective behavioral offset in 
     response to the implementation of such a Medicare Severity 
     Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) system for purposes of such 
     hospital inpatient prospective payment system.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
July 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my 
colleagues and friends, Peter Welch of Vermont and Jerry Weller from 
Illinois, for joining me in offering this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, hospitals need more than just 2 months to change their 
coding system. It's too much too soon. CMS needs to give them the time 
they need. In addition, we must not allow CMS to implement this 
behavior offset.
  I've talked to hospitals in my district. They're doing everything 
right when it comes to coding and charging Medicare. This cut will 
punish the hospital before they've done anything wrong. 269 Members of 
the House feel the same way.
  Mr. Weller and I sent a letter to CMS on June 12, along with 267 of 
our colleagues and 63 Senators urging CMS not to make this $24 billion 
cut. Hospitals do not deserve a $24 billion cut. I ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment and help our hospitals.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. And first let me thank my colleagues, John Lewis, Peter 
Welch, for the opportunity to join in bipartisan sponsorship of this 
amendment.
  This amendment prevents the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services from cutting $24 billion in funding for our local hospitals, 
funding that's used to provide care to seniors disabled under Medicare. 
In my district alone this would mean a loss of $60 million in 
reimbursement for my local hospitals, having a devastating effect on 
the quality of care.
  A key misstep in the proposed rule is the 2.4 percent so-called 
behavior offset payment cut. CMS proposed this cut to eliminate what 
the agency has inaccurately claimed will be the effect of greater use 
of coding as hospitals move to a new system. These extreme cuts in 
reimbursements, based on speculation rather than fact, will impose an 
added burden on all hospitals.
  Earlier this year my friend and colleague John Lewis and I circulated 
a letter in opposition to these Draconian cuts. The response was 
overwhelming, with 269 Members of this House going on the record 
against this devastating cut to our local hospitals. This is 
overwhelming bipartisan opposition to this bad policy proposed by CMS.
  Mr. Chairman, I will include this letter in the Record in support of 
this amendment.
  The amendment also prohibits CMS from prospectively applying any 
behavioral offset in fiscal year 2008, ensuring that any adjustments 
made for coding changes will be based on the actual experiences of the 
hospital, not mere conjecture.
  I ask my colleagues to join us in bipartisan support of this effort 
to prohibit the use of any funds to implement these Draconian 
provisions of the IPPS rule that will place hospitals under undue 
financial burden, compromising the quality of care our constituents 
deserve.
  In order to prevent these local hospitals and protect our 
constituents, I ask my colleagues to vote in a bipartisan ``yes.''

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, June 12, 2007.
     Re CMS Proposed Inpatient Prospective Payment Rule
     Ms. Leslie V. Norwalk, Esquire,
     Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
         Services (CMS), Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Norwalk: We write to express our strong opposition 
     to two provisions in the proposed Inpatient Prospective 
     Payment System (IPPS) regulation. We respectfully request 
     that these provisions be excluded from the final regulation.
       The first provision would impose a 2.4 percent cut to all 
     operating and capital payments for inpatient hospital 
     services for Medicare patients based on the misguided premise 
     of a so-called ``behavioral offset.'' This unwarranted 
     proposal would result in payment reductions for hospital 
     services in both FY08 and FY09, cutting $24 billion dollars 
     in operating and capital payments over the next five years.
       The second proposal would reduce payments to hospitals in 
     urban areas for capital-related costs for inpatient hospital 
     services, cutting payments by nearly $1 billion over the next 
     five years. We urge you to eliminate both provisions when the 
     final regulation is published.
       Please allow us to further explain our strong objection to 
     these changes:
       1. Cuts due to a ``Behavioral Offset.'' The suggestion to 
     cut hospital operating and capital payments is based on the 
     suggested

[[Page 19793]]

     adoption of a classification system called Medicare Severity 
     Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs). This change is grounded 
     on the belief that with the implementation of the MS-DRGs, 
     hospitals would change coding practices, resulting in higher 
     payments. Not even in the initial years of the IPPS was 
     coding change found to be of the magnitude of CMS's proposed 
     FY08 and FY09 cuts. MS-DRGs are simply a refinement of a 
     classification system that hospitals have been using for 23 
     years. Hospitals are already experts in coding for payment; 
     they have little ability to change their classification and 
     coding practices.
       The rationale for the reduction is also based on the 
     transition of hospitals in Maryland to a completely new type 
     coding system called All Patient Refined DRGs (APR-DRGs). We 
     have concerns with the methodology of reaching this 
     conclusion. Maryland's hospitals are paid under a state rate-
     setting system where an incentive to code accurately did not 
     significantly affect what a hospital was paid. The 
     classification system recently adopted by Maryland is much 
     more complicated than what CMS is proposing and changed the 
     coding incentives for Maryland hospitals. Generalizing the 
     Maryland experience to the rest of the nation's hospitals is 
     an ``apples-to-oranges'' comparison.
       CMS is not mandated by law to impose a behavioral offset in 
     the IPPS regulation, yet has chosen to do so. There is no 
     precedent in other payment systems for making a prospective 
     adjustment of this magnitude--without any empirical evidence 
     of actual and measurable changes in coding. While CMS has, on 
     occasion, made adjustments for coding in implementing new 
     payment systems, these changes generally have been made based 
     on actual experience. When implementing a new physician fee 
     schedule payment system in 1992, CMS (then the Health Care 
     Financing Administration) imposed a behavioral offset on 
     physician services, primarily to offset predicted increases 
     in the volume of services. We later learned that the offset 
     was much higher than was necessary, and the reduction was 
     never returned to the physicians adversely affected by those 
     cuts.
       2. Cuts to Capital-Related Payments. For years, the 
     Medicare program has paid for its share of the capital-
     related costs of inpatient hospital services. The proposed 
     rule would freeze capital payments for all hospitals in urban 
     areas and would eliminate additional capital payments made to 
     large hospitals in urban areas. Taken together, these cuts 
     would amount to nearly $1 billion over the next five years.
       These changes in capital payments would make it much more 
     difficult for hospitals to purchase advanced technology and 
     equipment and could have the effect of slowing clinical 
     innovation in the hospitals most likely to conduct cutting 
     edge research. Additionally, such a reduction could slow the 
     adoption of much needed health information technology. 
     Hospitals make long-term commitments to capital acquisitions. 
     This proposal amounts to pulling the rug out from under their 
     financial obligations to maintain and improve their physical 
     facilities for patients.
       Congress recently opposed a component of the 
     administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal that would 
     have significantly reduced hospital payments. As you know, 
     both the FY08 House and Senate budget resolutions reinforced 
     this sentiment by rejecting those cuts. The administration's 
     attempt to achieve payment reductions of this magnitude 
     through the regulatory process is equally unacceptable. We 
     believe this action circumvents Congress' intent that 
     hospital services for Medicare patients not be reduced.
       In closing, we would like to reiterate our belief that 
     CMS's decision could serve to jeopardize hospitals' ability 
     to continue to care for patients. CMS's behavioral offset is 
     unnecessary, and will result in devastating cuts to hospital 
     services for our constituents.
       CMS's proposal to cut capital-related payments would create 
     significant financial difficulties for many of our most 
     innovative hospitals. We strongly support the elimination of 
     these provisions from your final regulation.
       Both CMS and Members of Congress share the goal of serving 
     the American public and helping those most in need. We hope 
     that you will give strong consideration to the bipartisan 
     concerns outlined in this letter.
       Sincerely,
       Signed by 269 Members of the House of Representatives.

    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COSIGNERS OF THE CMS PROPOSED INPATIENT
                     PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT RULE LETTER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Member                                State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John Lewis.............................  (GA)
2. Jerry Weller...........................  (lL)
3. Neil Abercrombie.......................  (HI)
4. Gary L. Ackerman.......................  (NY)
5. Robert Aderholt........................  (AL)
6. Rodney Alexander.......................  (LA)
7. Tom Allen..............................  (ME)
8. Jason Altmire..........................  (PA)
9. Robert E. Andrews......................  (NJ)
10. Michael Arcuri........................  (NY)
11. Joe Baca..............................  (CA)
12. Spencer Bachus........................  (AL)
13. Tammy Baldwin.........................  (WI)
14. John Barrow...........................  (GA)
15. Shelley Berkley.......................  (NV)
16. Marion Berry..........................  (AR)
17. Judy Biggert..........................  (IL)
18. Brian P. Bilbray......................  (CA)
19. Sanford Bishop........................  (GA)
20. Timothy H. Bishop.....................  (NY)
21. Rob Bishop............................  (UT)
22. Marsha Blackburn......................  (TN)
23. Earl Blumenauer.......................  (OR)
24. Jo Bonner.............................  (AL)
25. Mary Bono.............................  (CA)
26. John Boozman..........................  (AR)
27. Leonard Boswell.......................  (IA)
28. Rick Boucher..........................  (VA)
29. Charles Boustany, Jr..................  (LA)
30. Nancy Bayda...........................  (KS)
31. Robert A. Brady.......................  (PA)
32. Kevin Brady...........................  (TX)
33. Bruce Braley..........................  (IA)
34. G.K. Butterfield......................  (NC)
35. Steve Buyer...........................  (IN)
36. Michael Capuano.......................  (MA)
37. Dennis Cardoza........................  (CA)
38. Russ Carnahan.........................  (MO)
39. Christopher Carney....................  (PA)
40. Julia Carson..........................  (IN)
41. John Carter...........................  (TX)
42. Mike Castle...........................  (DE)
43. Ben Chandler..........................  (KY)
44. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick.............  (MI)
45. Yvette Clarke.........................  (NY)
46. Howard Coble..........................  (NC)
47. Steve Cohen...........................  (TN)
48. John Conyers..........................  (MI)
49. Jerry F. Costello.....................  (IL)
50. Joe Courtney..........................  (CT)
51. Joe Crowley...........................  (NY)
52. Henry Cuellar.........................  (TX)
53. Elijah Cummings.......................  (MD)
54. Susan Davis...........................  (CA)
55. Geoff Davis...........................  (KY)
56. Lincoln Davis.........................  (TN)
57. Danny Davis...........................  (IL)
58. David Davis...........................  (TN)
59. William D. Delahunt...................  (MA)
60. Rosa DeLaura..........................  (CT)
61. Charles W. Dent.......................  (PA)
62. Norman D. Dicks.......................  (WA)
63. Lloyd Doggett.........................  (TX)
64. Joe Donnelly..........................  (IN)
65. Michael Doyle.........................  (PA)
66. John J. Duncan, Jr....................  (TN)
67. Chet Edwards..........................  (TX)
68. Vernon J. Ehlers......................  (MI)
69. Keith Ellison.........................  (MN)
70. Jo Ann Emerson........................  (MO)
71. Eliot Engel...........................  (NY)
72. Phil English..........................  (PA)
73. Bob Etheridge.........................  (NC)
74. Terry Everett.........................  (AL)
75. Mary Fallin...........................  (OK)
76. Sam Farr..............................  (CA)
77. Chaka Fattah..........................  (PA)
78. Mike Ferguson.........................  (NJ)
79. Bob Filner............................  (CA)
80. Randy Forbes..........................  (VA)
81. Luis Fortuno..........................  (PR)
82. Vito Fossella.........................  (NY)
83. Barney Frank..........................  (MA)
84. Rodney Frelinghuysen..................  (NJ)
85. Scott Garrett.........................  (NJ)
86. Jim Gerlach...........................  (PA)
87. Gabrielle Giffords....................  (AZ)
88. Kristen Gillibrand....................  (NY)
89. Paul E. Gillmor.......................  (OH)
90. Phil Gingrey..........................  (GA)
91. Charles Gonzalez......................  (TX)
92. Virgil Goode..........................  (VA)
93. Bart Gordon...........................  (TN)
94. Sam Graves............................  (MO)
95. Gene Green............................  (TX)
96. Al Green..............................  (TX)
97. Raul Grijalva.........................  (AZ)
98. John Hall.............................  (NY)
99. Phil Hare.............................  (IL)
100. Robin Hayes..........................  (NC)
101. Dean Heller..........................  (NV)
102. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............  (SD)
103. Brian Higgins........................  (NY)
104: Baron Hill...........................  (IN)
105. Maurice Hinchey......................  (NY)
106. Mazie K. Hirono......................  (HI)
107. David Hobson.........................  (OH)
108. Paul Hodes...........................  (NH)
109. Tim Holden...........................  (PA)
110. Eleanor Holmes Norton................  (DC)
111. Rush Holt............................  (NJ)
112. Michael M. Honda.....................  (CA)
113. Darlene Hooley.......................  (OR)
114. Jay Inslee...........................  (WA)
115. Steve Israel.........................  (NY)
116. Darrell Issa.........................  (CA)
117. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.................  (lL)
118. Sheila Jackson-Lee...................  (TX)
119. William Jefferson....................  (LA)
120. Bobby Jindal.........................  (LA)
121. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson............  (GA)
122. Timothy V. Johnson...................  (IL)
123. Eddie Bernice Johnson................  (TX)
124. Walter Jones.........................  (NC)
125. Steve Kagen..........................  (WI)
126. Paul E. Kanjorski....................  (PA)
127. Marcy Kaptur.........................  (OH)
128. Dale E. Kildee.......................  (MI)
129. Peter King...........................  (NY)
130. Ron Klein............................  (FL)
131. John Kline...........................  (MN)
132. Dennis Kucinich......................  (OH)
133. John R. Kuhl.........................  (NY)
134. Ray LaHood...........................  (IL)
135. James R. Langevin....................  (RI)
136. Rick Larsen..........................  (WA)
137. John Larson..........................  (CT)
138. Tom Latham...........................  (IA)
139. Barbara Lee..........................  (CA)
140. Sander Levin.........................  (MI)
141. Ron Lewis............................  (KY)
142. Frank LoBiondo.......................  (NJ)
143. Dave Loebsack........................  (IA)
144. Zoe Lofgren..........................  (CA)
145. Nita Lowey...........................  (NY)
146. Frank Lucas..........................  (OK)
147. Stephen Lynch........................  (MA)
148. Tim Mahoney..........................  (FL)
149. Carolyn B. Maloney...................  (NY)
150. Donald A. Manzullo...................  (IL)
151. Edward J. Markey.....................  (MA)
152. Jim Marshall.........................  (GA)
153. Jim Matheson.........................  (UT)
154. Doris Matsui.........................  (CA)
155. Carolyn McCarthy.....................  (NY)
156. Michael McCaul.......................  (TX)
157. Betty McCollum.......................  (MN)
158. Thaddeus McCotter....................  (MI)
159. Jim McDermott........................  (WA)
160. Jim McGovern.........................  (MA)
161. John M. McHugh.......................  (NY)
162. Mike McIntyre........................  (NC)
163. Cathy McMorris Rodgers...............  (WA)
164. Jerry F. McNerney....................  (CA)
165. Michael McNulty......................  (NY)
166. Gregory W. Meeks.....................  (NY)
167. Charlie Melancon.....................  (LA)
168. Michael Michaud......................  (ME)
169. Brad Miller..........................  (NC)
170. Harry Mitchell.......................  (AZ)
171. Alan Mollohan........................  (WV)
172. Dennis Moore.........................  (KS)
173. Gwen Moore...........................  (WI)

[[Page 19794]]

 
174. Shelley Moore Capito.................  (WV)
175. James Moran..........................  (VA)
176. Christopher Murphy...................  (CT)
177. Patrick Murphy.......................  (PA)
178. Tim Murphy...........................  (PA)
179. John P. Murtha.......................  (PA)
180. Jerrold Nadler.......................  (NY)
181. Grace Napolitano.....................  (CA)
182. Richard Neal.........................  (MA)
183. James Oberstar.......................  (MN)
184. John W. Olver........................  (MA)
185. Solomon P. Ortiz.....................  (TX)
186. Bill Pascrell........................  (NJ)
187. Ed Pastor............................  (AZ)
188. Ron Paul.............................  (TX)
189. Donald Payne.........................  (NJ)
190. Steve Pearce.........................  (NM)
191. Ed Perlmutter........................  (CO)
192. Collin Peterson......................  (MN)
193. John Peterson........................  (PA)
194. Thomas Petri.........................  (WI)
195. Joseph Pitts.........................  (PA)
196. Todd Russell Platts..................  (PA)
197. Ted Poe..............................  (TX)
198. Jon Porter...........................  (NV)
199. Tom Price............................  (GA)
200. David Price..........................  (NC)
201. Deborah Pryce........................  (OH)
202. George Radanovich....................  (CA)
203. Nick J. Rahall, III..................  (WV)
204. Jim Ramstad..........................  (MN)
205. Denny Rehberg........................  (MT)
206. Dave Reichert........................  (WA)
207. Rick Renzi...........................  (AZ)
208. Silvestre Reyes......................  (TX)
209. Tom Reynolds.........................  (NY)
210. Ciro Rodriquez.......................  (TX)
211. Mike Rogers..........................  (AL)
212. Harold Rogers........................  (KY)
213. Dana Rohrabacher.....................  (CA)
214. Peter Roskam.........................  (IL)
215. Mike Ross............................  (AR)
216. Steve Rothman........................  (NJ)
217. Lucille Roybal-Allard................  (CA)
218. Bobby Rush...........................  (IL)
219. Tim Ryan.............................  (OH)
220. John T. Salazar......................  (CO)
221. Bill Sali............................  (ID)
222. Loretta Sanchez......................  (CA)
223. Jim Saxton...........................  (NJ)
224. Adam Schiff..........................  (CA)
225. Allyson Schwartz.....................  (PA)
226. David Scott..........................  (GA)
227. Robert C. Scott......................  (VA)
228. Jose Serrano.........................  (NY)
229. Pete Sessions........................  (TX)
230. Joe Sestak...........................  (PA)
231. Christopher Shays....................  (CT)
232. Carol Shea-Porter....................  (NH)
233. Bill Shuster.........................  (PA)
234. Mike Simpson.........................  (ID)
235. Albio Sires..........................  (NJ)
236. Louise M. Slaughter..................  (NY)
237. Chris Smith..........................  (NJ)
238. Vic Snyder...........................  (AR)
239. Mark Souder..........................  (IN)
240. Zachary Space........................  (OH)
241. Cliff Stearns........................  (FL)
242. Bart Stupak..........................  (MI)
243. Betty Sutton.........................  (OH)
244. John Tanner..........................  (TN)
245. Ellen Tauscher.......................  (CA)
246. Gene Taylor..........................  (MS)
247. Lee Terry............................  (NE)
248. John F. Tierney......................  (MA)
249. Edolphus Towns.......................  (NY)
250. Stephanie Tubbs Jones................  (OH)
251. Michael R. Turner....................  (OH)
252. Mark Udall...........................  (CO)
253. Tom Udall............................  (NM)
254. Fred Upton...........................  (MI)
255. Chris Van Hollen.....................  (MD)
256. Nydia Velazquez......................  (NY)
257. James T. Walsh.......................  (NY)
258. Tim Walz.............................  (MN)
259. Zach Wamp............................  (TN)
260. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.............  (FL)
261. Maxine Waters........................  (CA)
262. Diane E. Watson......................  (CA)
263. Anthony Weiner.......................  (NY)
264. Peter Welch..........................  (VT)
265. Ed Whitfield.........................  (KY)
266. Heather Wilson.......................  (NM)
267. Lynn Woolsey.........................  (CA)
268. David Wu.............................  (OR)
269. John Yarmuth.........................  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I speak to paragraph 1 of the 
amendment. This is another proposed CMS rule. Bottom line is this: Our 
American hospitals and health care delivery system has to provide 
health care to our citizens. CMS plays a major role in helping us to do 
that and to contain costs.
  But CMS, the government representative, has to be a partner of our 
deliverers, the hospitals, not an adversary. And that requires that 
they give more than 2 months notice, they give a heads up to the 
hospitals when they're going to change a rule that has the direct and 
immediate impact of changing revenue streams for our hospitals.
  This amendment, paragraph 1, like paragraph 2, simply delays the 
implementation so that there will be a heads up, a time to respond, a 
time to study it and a time to implement it.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, 269 Members of this body are on 
record in their support of this bipartisan amendment. It is simply 
wrong to punish the hospital before they have done anything wrong. So I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, on this side of the aisle we'd be happy to 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I agree. I am one of the 
signatories on the letter. I support it. It will help our hospitals.

                              {time}  1215

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. 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.


           Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. 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. 26 offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to carry out the Entertainment Education Program 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
       (b) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used for the Ombudsman Program of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention.
       (c) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to 
     provide additional rotating pastel lights, zero-gravity 
     chairs, or dry-heat saunas for its fitness center.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 18, 2007, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I wonder if I could ask the gentleman a question. In the 
interest of saving time helping Members get to their planes, would the 
gentleman be willing to forgo extended comment if we accept the 
comment?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yes. I will just explain the amendment and 
then I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is 
recognized.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the Chair's indulgence and I will 
just take a moment to explain what this amendment does, and then I will 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a recent troubling report entitled ``CDC Off 
Center,'' which was produced under the direction of Senator Coburn with 
a report in the Senate Government Affairs Committee. Instead of using 
its resources to fight life-threatening diseases like HIV/AIDS and 
cancer, the CDC has instead spent money on needless luxury items and 
nongovernment functions.
  For example, the CDC's Office of Health and Safety recently provided 
its employees with a new, extravagant fitness center that includes such 
items as rotating pastel ``mood'' lights, zero-gravity chairs, and 
$30,000 dry-heat saunas. The CDC has also spent over $1.7 million on a 
``Hollywood liaison'' to advise TV shows like ``E.R.'' and ``House'' on 
medical information included in their programming, clearly an expense 
that should have been covered by the successful for-profit television 
shows, not by our hard-earned tax dollars. They also further squandered 
taxpayer dollars in an office intended to help improve employee morale. 
This program, which currently costs $250,000 per year, has yielded just 
98 complaints since it was created last year. At this rate it is 
costing taxpayers about $3,000 per complaint. Despite the program's 
lack of use, the CDC is planning to spend at least $1 million more to 
expand it.
  In a time when we are facing increasing risk of bioterrorism and 
disease, these are hardly the best use of taxpayer dollars.
  My amendment simply would ensure that the CDC would not be able to

[[Page 19795]]

spend any more Federal funding on these three boondoggles described 
above. And it is my hope that we can get the CDC focused on doing its 
job, which is very important and they do a good job on that, and not on 
these kinds of boondoggles. This report shows dozen of examples of 
these abuses.
  And I appreciate the Chair for his indulgence and the acceptance of 
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 Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Upton

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Upton:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have 
     the ``ENERGY STAR'' designation.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
July 18, 2007, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, because we are trying to get Members out of 
here for their planes, I would be happy to accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. No problem.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Page 125, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 522. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
July 18, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. 
We are not sure which amendment this is.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order. And I would 
simply ask the gentleman, in the interest of time, would the gentleman 
be willing to shorten his remarks and we would be happy to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that. I will shorten my 
remarks to approximately 30 seconds to say, I thank the chairman for 
accepting the amendment. I thank the previous subcommittee chairmen as 
well for accepting similar which we have done in the past, which simply 
says to set priorities. When we have Federal agencies send Federal 
employees overseas for conferences, we should put a realistic 
limitation on it, and this one, I think, does, at 50 employees of any 
Federal Department or agency for any single conference occurring 
outside the United States.
  Again, I appreciate the chairman's acceptance of the amendment.
  While this is an amendment that I have proposed to other 
appropriations bills, I believe it is especially important that it be 
included on this bill.
  Since 2000, HHS has spent over $435 million on conferences and spent 
$88 million just last year. Government-wide spending in those same 
years was over $1.5 billion.
  In 2002 HHS spent $3.6 million to send 236 persons to the AIDS 
conference in Barcelona.
  In 2004 HHS spent $500,000 to send 140 persons to the AIDS conference 
in Bangkok.
  In 2005 HHS sent 300 employees to a dioxin conference in Toronto.
  Last year the agency sent delegations of 200 or more to 54 separate 
conferences.
  Many of these conferences are now covered online, allowing interested 
parties to attend without expensive plane tickets, meals, and hotel 
rooms.
  An identical amendment was included in the House-passed version of 
the FY05 appropriations bill but removed in conference. I cannot help 
but think of the possibly tens of millions of taxpayer money that could 
have been saved in the past few years had this language become 
standard.
  I trust that the new chairman will work to include the amendment in 
the conference agreement--we must inject some sense into HHS. This 
amendment will only limit international conferences, just a small step 
in reigning in an agency that seems to think its job is to talk about 
problems instead of working to solve them.
  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. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:

                                TITLE VI

                     ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for the 
     ``Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
     Administration, Training and Employment Services'', by 
     increasing the amount made available for the ``National 
     Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute'', and by 
     increasing the amount made available for the ``National 
     Institutes of Health, National Institute of Neurological 
     Disorders and Stroke'' by $49,000,000, $10,000,000, and 
     $10,000,000, respectively.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
July 18, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will yield.
  Mr. OBEY. Again, the same deal, if we accept the amendment. We are 
trying to help get Members out of here.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will. I will just extend that 30 seconds 
to approximately 1 minute, though, because I just want to make a point 
on this amendment.
  I very much appreciate the chairman for accepting this amendment. 
What this amendment does, as we have said all along, is it sets 
priorities, and it does on two areas that are extremely important to 
the Fifth Congressional District and the State of New Jersey and the 
entire Nation as well. And that is that we set priorities by increasing 
funding in two very important areas.
  One is to the National Cancer Institute for additional cancer 
research by $10 million. And another area of extreme importance to the 
State of New Jersey for the rising number of children being born with 
autism, to direct an additional $10 million for research in that area 
as well.
  I will just give a couple of statistics: one in 150 children, and it 
used to be one in around 10,000, is now diagnosed with autism. Every 
day 67 children are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, which 
translates into a new case almost every 20 minutes. Autism is becoming 
the fastest-growing serious developmental disability in the United 
States. That was the purpose for putting that in these amendments, and 
I thank the chairman for agreeing with us to the importance and seeing 
that additional funds go to these very worthy causes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that would take $49 million 
from an account that was zeroed out in the President's budget request, 
and transfer it to two Institutes at the National Institutes of Health 
that I believe

[[Page 19796]]

need additional funding--one working to fight cancer, and one working 
to fight autism.
  Since President Nixon unofficially declared war on cancer in his 
State of the Union Address of 1971, much progress has been made in the 
area of cancer research. Over the past three and one-half decades, 
science has continued to break down barriers in the fight against this 
disease. Today, cancer is no longer the mystery disease that it once 
was, and researchers know infinitely more about the prevention, 
detection, and treatment of the disease than ever before.
  All this research is beginning to bear fruit. Fewer people died from 
cancer in 2004 than in 2003 and the American public is witnessing 
declining rates for most major cancer types, including breast cancer, 
prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. But there's much more work to 
be done.
  I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for increasing 
the budget of the National Cancer Institute in this year's bill. I just 
think that we can do a little more. And this is an obviously higher 
priority with far broader application to the American people.
  We can also do a little more to fund research for a serious problem 
facing the country: autism.
  According to Autism Now, the largest autism foundation in the 
country: 1 in 150 children is diagnosed with autism; every day 67 
children are diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, which 
translates into a new case almost every 20 minutes; and autism is the 
fastest-growing serious developmental disability in the United States.
  According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in my 
home State of New Jersey, the rate of new autism spectrum disorder 
cases is the highest in the country. One in sixty boys in New Jersey is 
affected.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would also increase the budget of the 
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke by $10 million. 
This Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, is the 
organization within the Federal Government that is primarily 
responsible for organizing the research into autism.
  The account that this amendment would take from was proposed to be 
eliminated entirely by the administration, as it has demonstrated to be 
duplicative and ineffective. My amendment retains some funding in that 
account, but reduces it. If these appropriations bills are about 
priorities, I ask that we make research on cancer and autism a 
priority, above duplicative and ineffective programs.
  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. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 61 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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. 61 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
July 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is 
this strikes an earmark, $200,000, for the Andre Agassi College 
Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada.
  Let me explain, Mr. Chairman. I know that the gentlewoman from 
Nevada, who is here, and I believe the gentleman from Nevada also are 
supportive of this. What this amendment is not about is about the 
merits of this particular academy, as I understand it is a charter 
school, or whether it is a good school or not.
  I received a call yesterday from the director of the Andre Agassi 
Foundation, who has provided a lot of the funding for this school, 
inviting me to come to the school in August and to see what they are 
doing and take a tour. And that is very nice and very flattering, but 
that actually isn't the point. I am sure it is a very fine school. I am 
sure it is doing lots of great work. But my understanding is that this 
school is at least half, if not more than that, funded by charitable 
donations, including from Mr. Agassi and from 1 of the Las Vegas 
casinos and lots of other people.
  What I raise this about is whether we should be using earmarks to 
give out like this to what are essentially charitable works. Now, I am 
sure there are many other good schools in Nevada. There are many in my 
area. I am sure there are fine museums. I am sure there are fine 
research facilities. I am sure there are all kinds of different things 
that we can spend Federal money on.
  But I don't think that when the taxpayers pay their taxes that they 
intend that part of it is a repository for us, as Members of Congress, 
any of us as Members of Congress, to delve into that money and go out 
and say this is a charitable organization which I find worthy in my 
district and here is the taxpayers' money for that from me. Because it 
is not from me. It is not from the Member of Congress. It is the 
taxpayers' money. And I think we are better off leaving the taxpayers 
with their own money so they can give it to whatever charitable 
organizations, schools, museums, historical developments, research, 
that they feel they should. And I just don't feel that it is our right, 
as Members of Congress, to hand this money out, no matter how 
beneficial or how worthy the cause is, to hand this out to various 
charities in our districts, because it is not our money, and act as 
though it is something that we did.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Nevada is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible 
opposition to this amendment.
  In his misguided zeal to identify a high-profile example of wasteful 
Federal spending, the author of this amendment has instead provided me 
with an opportunity to sing the praises of a member of my community who 
has used his personal and professional success to help those that are 
less fortunate.
  In 2001 Andre Agassi opened a charter school in Las Vegas, the Andre 
Agassi College Preparatory Academy. It is in one of the most 
disadvantaged areas in my congressional district. Agassi Prep currently 
serves students in grades K-10, with grades 11 and 12 being added in 
the next 2 years, for a total of 630 students when enrollment is 
complete. The first class will graduate in 2009. The student body is 96 
percent minority.
  This earmark, which I thank the gentleman for highlighting, would go 
to the Andre Agassi Prep's Technology and Multimedia Initiative and 
will increase the use of computer technology in math, science, reading, 
and language instructions.

                              {time}  1230

  This is exactly the type of environment we should be encouraging for 
all of our students in all of our schools.
  Andre Agassi has been a tireless advocate for this academy and for 
numerous other philanthropic endeavors, including the Boys and Girls 
Clubs in Las Vegas, raising more than $60 million and contributing a 
substantial amount of his own money to improve the lives of children, 
youth at risk in my community. There is nobody that has done more for 
people in this community, my community, than Andre Agassi.
  The only reason we're talking about this project on the floor today 
is because a famous name is attached to it. But whereas my colleague on 
the other side hopes to find a celebrity asking for Federal handouts 
rather than digging into his own pocket, he has instead highlighted a 
model citizen and a leader who has tried to make a difference and 
convince others to do the same.
  It is one of the fastest growing areas. This is a very important 
earmark. I am proud to take this earmark. I will defend it with all my 
strength and ability.
  At this time, I would like to yield whatever time is remaining to my 
colleague from Nevada, Jon Porter.

[[Page 19797]]


  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate many Members of this body that 
are looking for ways to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, but I'm 
extremely disappointed that they've chosen this project.
  I must say that I'm afraid some of my colleagues haven't really done 
their homework. And I appreciate my friend and colleague from Nevada, 
Congresswoman Berkley, for stating some of the obvious.
  This particular program is what we need in America. And there is even 
a Web page today that shows this as an example of what's wrong with 
America. I want to stand here today and say this is what's right with 
America. We need to encourage public/private partnerships. Here is an 
individual that has adopted a charter school, a strong platform with 
the Republican Party, charter schools. It is a public charter school 
that he has adopted and writes a check for close to $3 million a year 
to keep it operating.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I'm embarrassed. This is what's right 
about America, not what's wrong about America. This particular school 
is serving a population that needs our help and assistance. We admit 
here day after day that we're not funding special needs kids enough, 
and we are not. This is another example of how we can help this very 
important population.
  And again, as my colleague said from Nevada, this is an example of an 
individual that is giving of his time, of his life to support our 
community, close to $60 million a year. He is giving to the community 
$3 million of his own money into this school.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. And I personally am 
very disappointed. This is an example of what's right about America. 
Mr. Agassi has done everything he can to help kids. He helps needy kids 
at our child welfare program, Boys and Girls Clubs across the 
community. He's not standing there with his hand out, he's standing 
there with support.
  So Mr. Chairman, I ask this body to oppose this amendment, and I am 
extremely embarrassed.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Reclaiming my time, let me sum up.
  I'm going to urge defeat of this amendment. And before I yield back 
the balance of my time, I want to reiterate that I represent one of the 
faster growing areas in the country. If we are forced to rely strictly 
on formula funding for Federal assistance, we will always be behind the 
eight ball. We depend and rely on these earmarks in order to keep up 
with the latest technology and importance of providing for the people 
that I represent. I'm sorry that I had to even come down here to defend 
this earmark. I'm proud of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, you know, I don't disagree, 
and I'm not in a position to disagree with anything about this school 
said by either the lady from Nevada or the gentleman from Nevada. 
Again, let me reiterate, that is not my point.
  My point is that there are probably many other schools that are 
worthy. There are probably all kinds of health considerations that are 
worthy. There are probably museums that are worthy. There are all kinds 
of things that are worthy. But the Federal Government does not 
traditionally fund charter schools. Schools are inherently local and 
State, and I think should be, and hopefully will continue to be. It's 
not a Federal school. And so I just don't think that it is right or 
appropriate that any of us pick something and essentially say this is 
where we're going to use the taxpayers' funds in a charitable endeavor.
  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. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to my colleague's 
comments about charter schools.
  Having been the co-author of charter school legislation in Nevada in 
the late 1990s, it truly is a Federal program. We do have funds 
available through grant processes that help charter schools. 
Unfortunately, we needed help immediately and this was the way to do 
it. As a matter of fact, this earmark isn't even in my district, it's 
adjacent to my district in Nevada. But it is traditional, it is what we 
do as a Congress. Another example of why I think Members understand 
their districts better than this full body, which is why we are here 
today in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The amendment was rejected.


         Amendment No. 62 offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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. 62 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, 
     City College of New York, NY.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
July 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would 
eliminate a $2 million earmark for the Charles B. Rangel Center for 
Public Service at the City College of New York, New York.
  Currently, Mr. Chairman, the City College of New York does not have a 
Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. The Web site shows there 
are 16 centers of study, none of which bear Mr. Rangel's name. So 
ostensibly this $2 million is going to be creating the Charles B. 
Rangel Center for Public Service.
  Currently, according to the Web site, it appears that most everything 
dealing with public service careers at the City College of New York 
currently goes through the Colin Powell Center for Policy Studies, 
which was founded by a charitable grant in 1997.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rangel provided to me yesterday a brochure 
here on the Center for Public Service in New York. And this has a lot 
of stuff in it, admittedly, it mentions many things. But there are a 
few things in it I thought were troubling, because amongst the things 
that it says this center will have are, quote, ``a well-furnished 
office for Congressman Rangel.'' Second, ``the Rangel Library to house 
its Rangel archives.'' And it goes on to say, quote, ``The Rangel 
archivist librarian will organize, index and preserve for posterity all 
documents, photographs and memorabilia relating to Congressman Rangel's 
career.''
  House rules, and House rule XXI, clause 6 says, and I quote, ``It 
shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint resolution, amendment 
or conference report that provides for the designation or redesignation 
of a public work in honor of an individual then serving as a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner or Senator.'' In other words, the rule 
says that we don't name public works after ourselves while we are in 
Congress.
  Now, it's my understanding from the Parliamentarian that this 
amendment does not violate the letter of that rule. I would argue, and 
argue to my friends in the majority, that it would violate the spirit. 
I really do not think this is a road we want to go down, where we, as 
Members, have the ability to create and name things after ourselves 
using public funds while we are in office. If you think about that, 
there are five colleges or universities in my district. I'm sure if I 
went to one of them, any of them, with $2 million and said, Let's have 
the John Campbell School of Fiscal Responsibility, I'm sure they would 
at least listen to that. But I don't think that would be right and I 
don't think that would be good and I don't

[[Page 19798]]

think that would be proper. And I don't believe that this earmark is 
either.
  So, I would request that my friends on the majority side and on the 
minority side consider, before you knee-jerk oppose this amendment, 
consider what this is opening up for this House. And do you really want 
to open up that we're going to have earmarks to name things after 
ourselves?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because I'm supporting 
the spirit and the rule.
  Let me make some things abundantly clear that this would not only not 
violate the spirit in which we are doing this, but 60 years ago Charles 
Rangel was a high school dropout on the streets of Lenox Avenue, and 
the only thing that brings him to this Congress is the G.I. Bill. And 
in my community, where only four out of 10 kids manage to finish high 
school, I've devoted my entire life in working with the public and 
private sector in trying to keep our kids in school, and giving them 
the opportunity to get an education.
  The days that we think that education is a local issue are over. As 
we move toward globalization, it is going to be far more important for 
every young person, every person in this country to be exposed, to get 
the education, and to compete.
  This is not a question of Federal funds being used to start anything. 
The City University came and asked would I start a drive to raise the 
money, which they already raised $25 million, in order to do this. And 
all the office things that you're talking about, when you talk about 
archives, it means after I leave here. And I do hope that there would 
be an office there, as we bring people in to encourage people to get an 
education, to go into public service. I cannot think of anything that I 
am more proud of. I wish we had more of this type of thing.
  And so it just seems to me, as you have seen fit to apply for an 
earmark here, that you understand what it is. I've been in office for 
38 years, I don't need any accolades. My community has given me that. 
My predecessor served for 26 years before me. So I do hope that when 
you start talking about we understand that you can do this, but we're 
anxious to make certain that people don't want this, anybody that has 
given 38 of their years to the Congress, anybody that was able to go 
back to high school under the G.I. Bill when they were 23, anybody that 
spends his time inspiring kids to go to school, to stay in school, to 
get an education, to get married, make contributions in anybody's 
community, and the city college that stood on a hill, where I had no 
idea that it was a college when I was a kid since nobody in my family 
had gone to college, anybody that can get this Congress to support 
something like that, I would laud not only the success in getting it 
done, but the spirit in which it's being done.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. You said that this is not starting this, 
but it does not exist today; is that correct, sir?
  Mr. RANGEL. We have corporation people making contributions. The 
school does not exist. It will be announced in October. And I hope my 
Federal Government is a part of that, as I know my city and State are 
going to be a part of it, not because my name is on it. I would feel 
just as strongly about this if it wasn't. But somehow they feel, as 
some people do, that my name on it will drive and be able to raise the 
private funds, and so far $25 million has been raised. And I want my 
government to be a part of that effort.
  The brochure is what is being sold to encourage people, including 
you, to understand what we're trying to do and what we're going to do.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. And so, you don't agree with me, or see 
any problem with us, as Members, sending taxpayer funds in the creation 
of things named after ourselves while we're still here?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Campbell, I would like to answer you. I would have a 
problem if you did it because I don't think that you've been around 
long enough that having your name on something to inspire a building 
like this in a school--it might be that it would be in order for you to 
get publicity and to get reelected. But since I've been here 38 years 
and have not really had any opposition from the other side, it doesn't 
serve any function for me, except to try to encourage people to 
participate with government, local government, teachers, in order to 
keep our kids in school.
  So, I am proud of the fact that they're using my name in order to 
create this. And it's going to be created. As I said, if you had gone 
to the Web site, you would have gotten a number, you could have gotten 
in touch with President Williams, he would have told you we've 
collected $25 million, and that would be it.
  So, not only do I not see anything wrong, but I wish more public 
servants that have the ability to do this would get involved in this 
type of thing. I think it's very important.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. If the gentleman would yield, is there, 
then, a number of years in which someone can have been in Congress in 
which you are then allowed to name something after yourself?
  Mr. RANGEL. No. But I'm convinced that after you're here a while that 
you would find out it's the quality of service and what you have 
produced for your constituents rather than how long you've been here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how 
much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I just think that putting our constituents 
first is what this place should be all about, and putting our country 
first.
  The gentleman from New York is a distinguished combat veteran, with 
38 years service in this House. But we have seen people leave this 
House to great glory, and to even be elected President or ambassador, 
captains of industry. And other of our colleagues have gone straight 
from this Chamber to jail. And the decision is best made by history. 
The collective wisdom of our rules is that, in general, we don't name 
things after ourselves when we are great and powerful, but no 
independent judgment could be leveled.

                              {time}  1245

  I support this project. I think this project is a good one. But I 
would just ask would the gentleman entertain a unanimous consent 
request simply to remove his name to advance this project, but to 
delete the current ego from this?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. I tried to make it clear, and I wish I had been better at 
it, that as flattered as I am that they are using my name, I am 
thoroughly convinced that the only reason they are using my name is the 
ability to attract funds to get this thing going. So for me to be able 
to remove my name from it, I would say that the $25 million that they 
raised was in bad faith, and the money that they intend to raise, that 
I would not lend my name to, they would never have done this unless I 
agreed.
  Mr. KIRK. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is a very powerful 
chairman. If he supports this project, they will come. But I worry 
about setting the precedent of everyone else naming things after 
themselves.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 19799]]

  In conclusion, it includes an office, et cetera. I just don't believe 
that we should use the power and authority we have while in office to 
use taxpayer funds to create monuments to ourselves or to participate 
in the creation of a monument to ourselves. That is just not something 
that I believe we should be doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I just want to commend the Democrats. We always said that 
names should be placed next to the earmarks. This earmark is going 
beyond the spirit of the law. The name is on the earmark.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Garrett amendment 
pertaining to the Department of Labor and the National Institutes of 
Health, which was previously adopted by a voice vote and accepted by 
the committee, I would like to clarify that the amendment does not 
specify which Department of Labor programs would be impacted.
  Adoption of that amendment does not create any legislative intent 
that would require the Department of Labor to reduce funding for the 
migrant and seasonal farm worker program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for the American Jazz 
     Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, for exhibits, education 
     programs, and an archival project.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Institute of Museum and Library 
     Services--Office of Museum and Library Services: Grants and 
     Administration'' is hereby reduced by $200,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
July 18, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
  Before talking about this amendment, there wasn't time for me to 
speak on the last one, I just want to say that I don't think it is the 
road that we want to go down to start naming facilities or programs 
after ourselves. I think that the rules may be a bit vague, but they 
seem clear enough that we shouldn't do that. The dialogue that I heard 
was, Are you worthy to have something named after you if you have just 
been here a few years? Does it take 38 years? What does it take?
  Frankly, I think it would take a lot more than $2 million to get any 
college or university in my district to name something the ``Flake 
Center,'' for a myriad of reasons. But, having said that, I just don't 
think it is a road that we should go down. So that is why I supported 
the gentleman's amendment. I hope others as they come to the floor 
will, as well.
  This amendment would prohibit $200,000 in Federal funds from being 
used for the American Jazz Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, for 
exhibits, education programs, and for an archival project. It reduces 
the cost of the bill by a consistent amount. I couldn't think of any 
jazzy line here, but I will just say that earmarks like this probably 
give taxpayers all over the blues.
  This earmark would come out of the Institute of Museum and Library 
Services account, or the IMLS. The IMLS administers a competitive grant 
program for museums, libraries and zoos. This committee has recommended 
this program be funded with nearly $18 million.
  Here is part of the problem, I think, with earmarks, particularly in 
this bill. We are often earmarking funds that are in programs at the 
agencies that are already designated to be awarded on a competitively 
bid process. This jazz museum, I am sure, has submitted applications. 
Perhaps they have won grants over the years. But maybe this year they 
didn't. So what earmarks typically do are circumvent the process that 
we have mandated to be established with these agencies.
  We often complain about Federal agencies not listening to us and 
going out and spending willy-nilly. That is often the case, certainly. 
It is our job, then, to call them in and say, we want to change your 
program. We want to have you competitively bid projects.
  I should point out that much of what we criticize the agencies for we 
are doing here in spades. Earmarks are, by their very definition, no-
bid contracts. We are saying to people out there, if you can't get your 
grant through the competitively bid process, come to us anyway, and we 
will earmark those funds for you. So there is no concept, no discussion 
of merit.
  Try as they might, I am sure the Appropriations Committee is not in a 
position to adequately scrub and vet all of these earmark requests. 
That is simply not their role and shouldn't be their role. We shouldn't 
put that burden on the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Let me first of all say that on the positive side, I do have respect 
for the gentleman from Arizona. He is consistent. He is not mean-
spirited with his opposition. There is a lot of mean-spirited 
conversation that goes on here.
  I should say to him, however, that this Member of Congress placed all 
120 requested earmarks on my Web site in March, not at the request of 
anyone. I did it. I am proud of my earmarks. I want everybody to see 
them. I don't think there is enough money going, though, to this 
particular project.
  When I was mayor of Kansas City, Missouri, we built the American Jazz 
Museum. It is the only museum on the planet dedicated to the 
preservation of America's only art form. Jazz is the only art form 
created in the United States of America. We have what is called the 
John Baker Collection. If students at the University of Arizona want to 
study the industry of jazz, the art form of jazz, and they would like 
to see the soundies, the only place they can see the John Baker 
Collection, the largest collection of old black and white soundies, is 
the American Jazz Museum in Kansas City.
  People from across this Nation, actually from across the world, come 
into Kansas City. The city put money into it. Of course, as a former 
mayor, I know that we send unfunded mandates down to the city. So the 
city, particularly, since I left office, reduces the funding each year. 
Since people are using this museum from all over this Nation, I'll bet 
there are people in Arizona, I hope they are watching, who are using 
the American Jazz Museum.
  So, I believe, first of all, that I have been as transparent as 
anybody could be. The comments we received from people in our district, 
Republicans and Democrats, is thank you for being transparent. I don't 
hide any of it. I want everybody to look at it, examine it. It gives me 
an opportunity to stand here, and hopefully people in my district are 
watching me now to stand here and not only defend the earmark, but to 
promote the American Jazz Museum.
  This is the home of Charlie ``YardBird'' Parker, who was born and 
raised

[[Page 19800]]

right there and went to school around the street from the museum. This 
is the place where Count Basie organized his band. This is the place 
where Jay McShan organized his band. Every major jazz artist in the 
world wanted to play 18th and Vine.
  Now, there is some debate about whether Kansas City or New Orleans is 
the Mother of Jazz. Of course, New Orleans is wrong, and I try to help 
them when I can. But the point here is that we need, Mr. Chairman, to 
have people who are going to put up earmarks to be in a position to 
feel good about them and to express it. So I don't see this so much as 
a defense, but as an opportunity to promote what I think is one of the 
legitimate projects for funding from the United States Congress because 
it serves the people of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the 
gentleman whose earmark this is. I believe he knows that. I commend him 
for earlier than just about anybody putting his earmarks on his Web 
site. Certainly, this has been a good reform. I have been 
complimentary, and I remain so, of the majority party's willingness in 
January to go down this road and actually require this much. It follows 
some of what we did in the fall as Republicans. Frankly, in some areas, 
I think it did better than we did.
  This isn't a case of something looks untoward in this earmark, or 
somebody is trying to get some private gain. It doesn't seem to me to 
be that at all. It is simply a question of, is this a proper priority? 
Should Members of Congress be able to designate money like this, 
particularly in this case, when we have a Federal agency with a program 
to award grants and an account with $16 million that we appropriate 
every year to award grants under this program? That is my question 
here.
  I think that certainly, as mentioned, jazz is uniquely American. I 
can't imagine them submitting a proposal that would not be granted. It 
seems like a great place. It seems to be appropriate. What is at 
question here is, should the Congress be doing this? That is where I 
am.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
  Mr. OBEY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to get a few things off my chest 
with regard to this earmarking issue.
  I know that policy questions are complicated, and I know that budget 
questions are complicated. I recognize, therefore, that substantial 
members of the press and some Members of the Congress as well in both 
bodies seek to find other more simple issues which are small enough to 
get their mind around. And so we have spent a good amount of time the 
last 3 weeks talking about earmarks. I want to put some things in 
perspective about earmarks.
  In the Financial Services bill, out of all of the money provided in 
that bill, 1.5 percent was devoted to earmarks.
  In Interior, 0.43 percent of all the money appropriated was provided 
for earmarks.
  In Transportation, 1.4 percent of the entire bill was allocated 
through earmarks.
  And in this bill, it is slightly less than 0.20. That is a very tiny 
portion of the overall bill.
  The executive branch allocates or directs spending at least 10 times 
as great as does the Congress and I don't see or hear much squawking 
about that.
  I just want to suggest this: I don't happen to be comfortable with 
the earmarking system because it is a pain in the neck to me, it takes 
an incredible amount of time, and I would much rather spend that time 
on policy. But the fact is that it is a constitutional prerogative of 
the Congress to do so. And I would submit it creates a much more fair 
system. An example, when Speaker Hastert ran this place last year, here 
he is the Speaker of the House, and yet if the Congress earmarked no 
money, all the dollars would go back to Illinois and they would be 
directed by a Democratic Governor. So Speaker Hastert would be part of 
the body that raised the money at the Federal level and sent the money 
back to States and local governments; and yet without the earmarking 
process, the most powerful and influential man in Congress would have 
nothing to say about how that money was allocated in his own State. I 
submit that is not right.
  Or take myself. I chair the Appropriations Committee. I think I spend 
more time and, frankly, I think I know at least as much about the 
Federal budget as anybody in this institution, not because I am so 
plugged in but because of my job and the fact that I have been here a 
long time, and even an idiot ought to be able to pick up a fair amount 
of information as long as I have been here.
  So I would simply ask the question why should I serve in this body, 
try to help my district, and then discover that for 16 straight years 
we had a Republican Governor, I had absolutely nothing to say about 
funds that were distributed in my State without the earmarking process.
  The earmarking process, if it is used correctly, allows individual 
Members to target things in their own district that they think will 
contribute the most to improving the living conditions or the 
educational conditions or the cultural conditions in that district. I 
don't think there is anything wrong with that.
  But I find it incredibly amazing and amusing that we are talking 
about 0.19 percent of all of the funds in this bill. How much time have 
we spent talking about basic education philosophy? How much time have 
we spent talking about which of these education programs really work? 
How much time have we spent in this debate talking about the programs? 
The answer is zip because some people prefer to deal with small things.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my colleagues of some 
important facts as we deliberate on these earmarks. I think it is very 
important to understand that we have reduced the dollar value of 
earmarks in this bill by 50 percent from the levels that the 
Republicans had when they were running this House of Representatives. A 
50 percent reduction. We have cut 41 wasteful programs from the budget 
in this appropriations bill. We have saved over $1 billion over last 
year.
  So instead of getting involved in the intricacies of one earmark 
after another, let's keep focused on the facts that count. And the fact 
that counts is that we reduced this budget and slashed those earmarks 
in half.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two final points. The 
first is the people in the Fifth Congressional District of Missouri, 
Harry Truman's district, will have the opportunity to judge whether or 
not I should have placed these projects before Congress for earmarks 
next November. I am measured by my representation in that district. I 
would suggest that they are going to be very pleased with what I have 
done.
  The other issue is that we are talking about a $200,000 earmark, and 
I had hoped for significantly more than that. We are spending $285 
million a day, $11 million a hour in Iraq. If you subtract $200,000, 
that would reduce the number of Coca-Colas in Iraq by about 4 cases 
based on the price they have been gouging.
  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. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page 19801]]

the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


             Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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. 6 offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 4.6 percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
July 18, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, one of the previous speakers from 
the majority party talked about how this legislation in front of us has 
reduced the number of earmarks. I believe his quote was there are 41 
programs that have been eliminated from last year's appropriation bill. 
Nevertheless, this bill increases spending $10.8 billion more than the 
President requested, 7.7 percent more than the President requested. It 
is $7 billion, or a 4.6 percent, increase over last year's 
appropriation.
  So my amendment is real straightforward. It says we are not going to 
go back to the President, we are not going to cut it, using the term 
``cut'' to the President's requested level, we are going to go back to 
last year's funding level, a level funding amendment, a hold-the-line 
amendment, whatever you want to call it. It is certainly not a cut, 
although that has typically been the argument made by the other side of 
the aisle.
  This is the sixth amendment I have offered in the appropriations 
process. Each one has been the same, to hold the line on spending. I 
don't do it to be a pain in the rear to the committee or to the ranking 
member. I appreciate the work of the committee and our ranking member 
and those involved on this committee in bringing this bill forward.
  I do it because we have a spending problem. We have a spending 
problem in this Congress and in this government, and there is going to 
come a day when we are going to have to deal with it. There is no 
better time to start than now, and no better place to start than to say 
let's just hold the line because here is what happens every single time 
government continues to spend and spend and spend. It inevitably leads 
to higher taxes, higher taxes that hurt our economy, higher taxes that 
hurt our standing in the international marketplace. But most 
importantly, higher taxes that hurt families out there trying to do the 
things for their kids and their grandkids so they can experience the 
American dream.
  If you don't believe me that spending is going to lead to higher 
taxes, all you have to do is look at yesterday's Roll Call where there 
is a story. In fact, we just had the distinguished chairman from the 
Ways and Means Committee down here defending an earmark in his 
district, but he is talked about and the article talks about the 
tobacco tax that they are looking to put on the American people to fund 
increased spending.
  The old line, it's tax and spend, tax and spend politicians; it's 
actually the opposite, it's spend and tax, spend and tax. Spending 
drives the equation, and that is why we need to begin to get a handle 
on spending. That's what this amendment does.
  In the course of offering these amendments over the last several 
weeks, we have consistently heard two arguments from the majority 
party. The first is the old devastating cut argument, that somehow if 
we just spend what we spent last year, that will somehow be terrible 
and the sky will fall and the world will end and everything will go to 
chaos. I find that hard to believe in light of the fact that countless 
number of American families have to do that all the time, live on last 
year's budget. But somehow, government never seems to be able to do 
that.
  The other line that we have heard, and I find this one somewhat 
amazing, but the line is how dare Republicans talk about holding the 
line on spending because you increased spending over the last several 
years as well. I am fascinated by that argument because the argument, 
when you boil it down, is this: Because Republicans spent too much, we 
are going to spend more.
  So I fail to see the logic in those two arguments. What I do 
understand is this, Mr. Chairman. Government spends too much. Families 
know how to budget. We should be able to do the same thing. Families 
don't just get an automatic 4.6 percent increase in their budget. We 
should look to hold the line on spending. That is what this amendment 
does. It will help set us on the path of fiscal discipline so we can 
begin to deal with the big problems that I referenced earlier that are 
going to be out there with entitlement spending, and begin to get a 
handle on our budget so that our economy can continue to grow and 
prosper.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a couple of short 
observations. We are told by this gentleman, and we have been told, and 
we have been told, and we have been told and we have been told for 3 
days that somehow it is this bill which is responsible for the 
outrageous fiscal mess facing the country. I just want to say one 
thing: Yes, this bill spends $10 billion more on our kids, on our 
workers, on our obligation to provide access to health care to people 
who don't have it, than the President does. I plead fully double 
guilty. I would do twice as much if I could. I would do three times as 
much if I could because the country needs it.
  This is the bill that makes the investments that will make our 
country stronger economically, educationally and socially not just 
today but for the next 10 years. That's what this bill is about.
  We have got a 2 percent difference between us and the President in 
terms of what we are trying to spend in this bill versus what he thinks 
we ought to spend. I have just told you where we have put it in the 
right places. Where does the President want to put money? The President 
wants to spend five times as much as the difference that we have with 
him on this bill, he wants to spend five times as much giving tax cuts 
to people who make more than a million bucks a year. He is going to 
give 57 billion bucks to people in this country who make over a million 
bucks a year. We think that money, a portion of it, is better spent on 
kids who need it and on sick people who need it. And we make no apology 
for it.
  The other thing I would simply say is that the other place that the 
President wants to spend it, he wants to spend 60 times as much as that 
$10 billion on that stupid war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy 
blunder in the history of the Republic.
  So we plead fully guilty to having a meaningful 2 percent difference 
between the President and us. We plead fully guilty, and I wish it were 
more.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the Republican leader, 
friend and gentleman from Ohio, for 1 minute.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague for yielding, 
and I rise today to support the gentleman's amendment.
  The bill before us spends some $10 billion more than the President 
requested, $7 billion more than what this bill spent last year. And 
what the gentleman seeks to do is reduce the overall amount of spending 
in this bill to the level we spent last year.
  Now, our job as Members of Congress is to make decisions, decisions 
about spending, and when we keep increasing

[[Page 19802]]

spending and increasing spending, guess what? There's no reason to make 
a decision. We don't have to make the tough choices because we just 
keep spending more.
  Now, this bill is some $7 billion more than we spent last year. This 
will be on top of the bills that we've already spent this year, 
spending some 10 to $12 billion more than the President asked for and 
above last year's levels.
  On top of that, there's $6 billion of additional spending that was in 
the continuing resolution in February; $17 billion more in the 
supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Katrina, over and above what 
was needed in those theaters. And the appropriation process is not 
finished yet.
  What's happening here is we're continuing to spend more. We've got 
the largest tax increase in American history coming, and I thought we 
were here to ensure that our kids and their kids had a better chance in 
life than what we had. I mean, every generation of Americans has been 
proud of the fact that they left the country and left opportunities for 
our children and their children that were better than what we had. And 
I think it's our obligation to make sure that our kids have a better 
chance at the American Dream than what we had.
  But we're not doing that. We're mortgaging our children's future by 
continuing to raise taxes and increase spending. We've done it all 
year, and we're not even to the end of the year yet. Now we're only in 
July and we've got numbers that will add up to close to $100 billion of 
additional spending. How much is enough? How much is enough?
  I think that the gentleman's amendment is a good amendment, just to 
bring the spending level in this bill down to last year's level, and 
let's make the tough choices that the American people sent us here to 
make.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the gentleman.
  They say on the other side, and the gentleman has said, that we have 
a spending problem and that they left the country in better shape. Our 
friends on the other side are talking about leaving the country in 
better shape. I think we need, Mr. Chairman, to remind them of the 
history here.
  What we're talking about is just 6 short years ago President Clinton 
left office with a budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, and a lot of us at 
that time were talking about how we were going to invest in education 
and health care and the important things that our country needs and 
that make our country stronger.
  And in 6 short years, 6 short years, our Republican friends have 
driven this country into a deficit situation. We're talking projected 
now on a 10-year basis $3 trillion or more in deficit.
  So I don't see how our friends on the other side of the aisle can 
claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. I don't see how they can 
claim in any way that they have left the country in better shape. I 
don't see how they can claim that they're fighting spending. I mean, 
this was, under them, borrow and spend, borrow and spend. That was the 
message. And what we're trying to do here in this particular piece of 
legislation is get under control a situation where we invest again in 
the things that the American people really care about: invest in 
education, investing in our workers so that we can have a competitive 
workforce, investing in Pell Grants to help students get the very best 
education.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask how much time both sides have left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Each side has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my friend and 
gentleman from Arizona, let me just respond to one thing real quickly.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee talked earlier about all 
the new spending, and the other side has a definition for success for 
them is more spending. Our side actually believes the definition of 
success should be success.
  And I always look at education. I came from the general assembly in 
Ohio, and one of the things you focus on so much in the general 
assembly budget process is primary and secondary education. And if you 
look at what's happened, and this is for every State, but I can just 
give you the numbers on Ohio.
  We have 612 public schools in Ohio. In 1977 we had 2 million K-12 
kids. Today we have 1.8 million. So we've had 200,000 less kids in K-12 
public school, 612 districts in our State. Over that 30 years, 200,000 
less kids. Dollars spent per pupil, dollars spent per aggregate, 
dollars spent for facilities, dollars spent any way you want to define 
dollars spent adjusted for inflation is a tremendous increase.
  So you have got 200,000 less kids. So you've got the graph going this 
way. The economists have always got these graphs. Graph coming down on 
number of students, graph going up adjusted for inflation, and what are 
the results? It's a straight line. So you spent a boatload more money 
on 200,000 less kids to get the exact same result. So more money may 
mean more learning in some places, but to make the blanket statement 
more money means more education, more money means more learning is 
simply not true, and the facts are on our side.
  So we define success as actually being success, not giving more money 
and hoping that good things are going to happen, and if they don't, you 
know what we're going to do, give them more money next time. We don't 
define it that way. We say if kids are really learning, that should be 
success, not the fact that we've given them more money.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It was brought up before that we're not talking about what the 
Federal agencies do. We talk a lot about what Congress does with 
earmarking, but there's an area of complaint I've heard about what the 
Federal agencies are doing. Well, this is the time to have that 
discussion. Right now.
  We're looking to reduce the amount spent, the amount that we 
appropriate to the Federal agencies. Yes, they waste money, a 
tremendous amount of money. They waste money in my own district. This 
is the time that we say, hey, hold back a little, reprioritize, don't 
spend as much, and yet we're not doing it.
  Instead, we say, well, you're misspending money and so we're going to 
misspend some money with earmarking. We don't like the way you have 
prioritized, so we're not going to actually go in and provide oversight 
and say, all right, stop spending money this way or that way. We're 
just going to add to it with our own priorities.
  Let me just give an example. It's often said we don't ever give 
examples of specific programs. I'll give you one. I believe it was last 
year or maybe the year before GAO came out with a study saying that the 
DARE program was a waste of money, basically, or we weren't getting the 
bang for the buck that we should. What did we do? We increased funding 
for it. Instead of saying, you know, maybe it's not run as it should 
be, maybe we should scale back on it, force them to change it or scrap 
it altogether, but instead we increased funding for it.
  That goes on across the board. GAO studies that we often commission 
are always followed by, well, they must need more money. Not the 
money's being misspent. They just need more of it.
  That's what this amendment is all about to say, hey, Federal agencies 
you're misspending money; you're spending too much; it's time to scale 
back, and by the way, we can scale back on our own as far as earmarking 
as well.
  So we never hear about the Federal agencies misspending. Here's one 
saying they do. They do in your district; they do in my district. This 
is the opportunity to say enough is enough. Let's cut back. Let's have 
some fiscal responsibility here.
  So I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and I urge everyone to 
support it.

[[Page 19803]]


  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman's argument. At least his argument is 
consistent. I appreciate the gentleman's integrity, and I appreciate 
the principles of his argument. But I must say, sitting here listening 
to some of the other Members on the other side of the aisle 
consistently raises issues of inconsistency.
  The gentleman who's offered this amendment has said we should go back 
to last year. That's all we're doing is going back to last year so we 
can hold the line on spending. Why would we want to go back to last 
year? When last year was there ever an attempt to hold the line on 
spending?
  Mr. Chairman, the other side spent and spent and spent and borrowed 
and borrowed and borrowed. The difference between us is we want to 
invest in America's families. The other side, Mr. Chairman, decided to 
spend to give special interest giveaways. We want to spend to make sure 
that kids can get Pell Grants and go to college and compete in the 
global economy. They wanted to spend on no-bid contracts to 
Halliburton. We want to spend to make sure that seniors can heat their 
homes in the winter because of high oil prices. They wanted to spend on 
$13 billion in tax cuts for oil company executives who I don't think 
are eligible for LIHEAP. That's the difference between us.
  We just had a debate earlier about the propriety of Members of 
Congress putting their names on projects that are funded by the Federal 
Government. I would suggest to my good friends that if there were an 
earmark for a facility called the Congressional Hypocrisy Treatment 
Foundation, there wouldn't be a plaque large enough for all of their 
names.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, some simple facts. The President's budget 
would have us spend as a share of our total national income 48 percent 
less on education, health care, science, job training, et cetera, than 
this country spent in 1980, and by 2012 he would have us spend 57 
percent less than we spent in 1980.
  That creates a problem because we're going to have 27 million more 
Americans in the next 10 years. We're going to have 12 million more 
seniors needing health care. We're going to have 2.7 million more kids 
in elementary and secondary school. We're going to have 2.2 million 
more students in college. And, unless we change our ways, we're going 
to have 11 million more Americans without health insurance.
  That's why we don't want to go back to last year. We want to move 
ahead to try to deal with the problems coming at us. We see them; 
they're there. We ought not to stick our head in the ground like an 
ostrich. We ought to deal with them, and that's what this bill does.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time is left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the distinguished ranking member from New York.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for bringing this amendment.
  There were a couple of things that were said in the debate that I 
just want to try to get a little clarity on.
  I served here in the late 1990s, and I recall that Republicans, as 
the majority party, passed a balanced budget in 1997. In 1998, we had 
our first balanced budget. Now, President Clinton was President at the 
time, but I believe I heard someone on the other side say President 
Clinton left the country with a $5.6 trillion surplus. I think they're 
mistaken. I think what they meant to say is President Clinton left the 
United States Government with a $5.6 trillion debt.
  Now, that debt has increased, but the fact is that when we were in 
the majority party, for the first time since the 1940s, we produced a 
balanced budget. The President does not have the power of the purse; 
the Congress does. We created that surplus. We created the balanced 
budgets, and there was no surplus left at the end of the Clinton 
administration. We actually paid down the debt about a half trillion 
dollars, about $500 billion. That was good work.
  Things changed pretty dramatically in 2001 when our Nation was 
attacked. We went to war, we had a recession, and the dot-com bubble 
burst.
  But we produced that surplus. We produced those balanced budgets. Not 
the President of the United States. The Congress. That's where the 
power of the purse resides.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Could I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how much time we 
have on our side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this would almost be sad if it really wasn't so 
comical.
  I think what a lot of folks are witnessing today is some more smoke 
and mirrors, another magic show that they may have seen somewhere.
  We have the chairman of the Appropriations Committee who said that 
the President's budget would spend 48 percent less this year on 
education and some other things that he mentioned than 1980, but yet 
they talk about what kind of spending spree we are on. I can't imagine 
what kind of spending spree the Democratic majority must have been on 
in 1980.
  Let me say this. We keep hearing a lot of history lessons, a lot of 
history in here. For some reason we don't want to talk about the 
future.
  But we keep hearing about the $57 billion from the people in this 
country that make over $1 million. Now, I really don't know if that's 
true or not. I am going to assume the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee knows if that's true or not.
  But it's almost like he sounds mad that he can't get his hands on 
somebody else's money. He says, you know, we can't get that $57 
billion, and we want to spend it. I am mad about it.
  You know what? We are spending too much money on the war on terror. 
Well, look, I have only been here 3 years, but I know one thing. I know 
that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Democratic 
leadership over there can stop this war today, today. They got 232 
votes. They control the purse strings, they can stop it today.
  The supplemental budget that we passed that our leader talked about 
was $20 billion more than the President requested. The chairman of the 
committee said, you know what, I would spend $10 billion more. What's 
stopping him? He is already spending $11 billion more. What's stopping 
him from spending $10 billion more.
  Because you know why? I think they are afraid to tell you that these 
things that they are investing in, that's what they like to call 
spending taxpayers' dollars. The things that they are investing in is 
coming out of the American people's pocket. They are making investments 
for the people of this country that they don't even have any say in. 
It's time we wake up.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman just said the things that they are investing in and 
implying that the Democrats are making these investments. Yes, we are 
making these investments. They are investments in strengthening 
American families, making sure kids can go to college, making sure 
people can afford to heat their homes.
  I will tell you something else, it's not just us, this bill came out 
of appropriations with a strong bipartisan majority. The most 
conservative Members of the other side voted for this bill. It's not 
that we are making these investments as Democrats, it's that most 
mainstream Members of Congress, with responsibilities to our districts, 
are making these investments.
  Now, maybe there are some who are so far on the other side, so far on 
the

[[Page 19804]]

fringe, that they would argue with their own conservative Members that 
an investment in college education is a bad idea. But the fact of the 
matter is, they are in a very, very small minority.
  This bill has strong bipartisan support in the Appropriations 
Committee. Republicans and Democrats work together despite the 
opposition from such a fringe minority.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. Would the gentleman from 
Georgia yield for a question?
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Sure.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I was wondering, I will ask it as you are walking, 
do you believe that the Federal Government has responsibility for any 
K-12 education programs?
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I think that the Federal Government, if they want 
to fund K-12, it should be in block grants to the local school 
districts for them to be able to spend the money to the needs of their 
local school districts and the needs of the State.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You do believe in Federal spending on education at 
the local level?
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I think that if the Federal Government is going to 
spend money on education, that they need to send it to the State as a 
block grant for the State Department of Education to spend in their 
local districts.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman.
  I wanted to make sure, because as we had the conversation, I have 
heard many gentleman who were up here earlier say they didn't believe 
in any Federal spending for education, local education, at all.
  I just want to clarify that you, at least, do believe that we do have 
an obligation to spend money. I appreciate you saying that.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. You know, I have listened to you many nights and I 
respect you, because I really believe that you are a true believer in 
what you are saying.
  Let me just say this, that I am part of that fringe.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I know. I have been here.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. You are part of a fringe, somewhat of a fringe.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I don't think I am.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Being part of that fringe, I am proud of the 
fringe.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, that's twice in the past 2 days that 
our friend from Georgia has admitted being on the fringe. In response 
to the claim that I am on the fringe voting for this bill, I would just 
like to say I joined his colleagues, every Republican on the Labor-H 
subcommittee from all over, conservative Republicans, in support of 
this bill.
  The gentleman from New York; Mr. Regula, the gentleman from Ohio, 
these are balanced, fair investments.
  As the gentleman from New York stated, we are not raising taxes. 
Check, keep your forms from last year, your tax forms, and compare them 
to next year. There will not be an increase in your taxes.
  What we are doing is we are not spending the money on the banks, we 
are spending it on the kids. We are not giving it to the oil companies, 
we are giving it to the kids for education and health care.
  It's a difference in priorities. There is not a tax increase in here, 
and the bottom line is we make investments into the future of our 
country.
  I find it offensive and staggering that the minority leader can come 
here, along with our friends, and talk about leaving the country in 
better shape than they found it, or that we have that obligation. Three 
trillion dollars in debt under your watch, Republican House, Republican 
Senate, Republican White House, $3 trillion.
  The gentleman from Ohio wasn't here, but this Congress asked the 
Secretary of the Treasury to raise the debt limit five or six times so 
they could go out and borrow more money from China, more money from 
Japan, more money from OPEC countries. So we don't need lectures on how 
to leave the country better off than we found it.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman, my 
friend from Ohio, how does increasing spending 4.6 percent over last 
year's bill, how does that help address the $3 trillion debt problem 
that I admit, I wasn't here, I admit that's a real problem.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Would the gentleman yield so I could ask you a 
question?
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield. I asked you a 
question.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You will probably remember, because we were in the 
State Senate together in Ohio, there was a study done by the University 
of Akron. It said every dollar that the State of Ohio invested in 
higher education, they got $2 back in tax money. This is an investment 
we are going to make, and we are going to yield returns.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, I would argue that every 
dollar we let the American taxpayer keep gets earned and returned to 
the economy, and that's what ultimately allows us to deal with the $3 
trillion in debt. That's why we are offering the amendment that we 
bring forward.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That's been the philosophy, and it hasn't worked.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. It has too worked. The deficits are coming down 
right now because of the tax cuts that were put in place earlier this 
decade. We have seen that happen right now.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We raised the debt limit six times. How can you say 
it worked?
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Yes, sometimes facts are a strange thing. The 
Federal Government does not have a revenue problem.
  Revenues increased by 14.5 percent in 2005, 11.6 percent in 2006, and 
are projected to grow an additional $167 billion, or 7 percent this 
year, because we let the American family keep more of their money, 
spend it on the things they want to spend it, instead of saying to 
them, you know what, we are going to increase spending 4.6 percent in 
this bill and $20 some billion in this appropriation process that we 
have done.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Two seconds, I would just say if your philosophy 
has worked, you would be in the majority right now.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how many speakers the other side 
has?
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I think our time is done.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the differences we have heard in this debate are 
entirely clear. We want to, with Republicans on the Appropriations 
Committee, who by a widespread margin supported this bill. We want to 
continue to invest in America's families and in their future. A very 
small group of Members on the other side want to continue going to the 
past where they were spending taxpayer dollars on special interest 
giveaways.
  There are people, in all of our districts, who are scratching their 
heads trying to figure out how they are going to send their kids to 
college so they can compete in a global economy. The President wants to 
slash or eliminate college affordability programs for 1.5 million 
students.
  Now, that's why Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations 
Committee supported investments that will make additional Pell Grants 
available so that people who are working hard, playing by the rules, 
and want their kids to advance can send their kids to college. This 
isn't a radical idea.
  This was a bipartisan consensus on the Appropriations Committee. But 
those who are offering these cutbacks don't agree with Republicans and 
Democrats who believe in making investments so that people who play by 
the rules and work hard can send their kids to college.
  There are people in our districts who are trying to figure out how 
they are

[[Page 19805]]

going to pay for their skyrocketing home heating oil costs. The 
President wants to cut home heating oil programs by $379 million and 
take away assistance to 1.5 million people.
  That's why Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee 
agreed that we should invest a fraction of that, $880 million to make 
sure that an additional 1 million people can pay their heating oil 
bills. Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee, 
bipartisan, there are a few who say, no, no, we should continue giving 
tax cuts to big oil company executives rather than giving people the 
ability, helping people with the ability to pay their home heating oil 
costs.
  There are people in our districts who can't figure out what to do if 
they get cancer, how they are going to have access to health care 
programs. The President wants to cut medical research at the NIH by 
$480 million and cut preventive health care services by $220 million. 
That's why Democrats and Republicans join together on the 
Appropriations Committee to invest $1.3 billion to improve health care 
access and help 1 million Americans receive treatment and increase 
investments in NIH.
  This is about priorities, bipartisan common-sense priorities. This is 
about those of us on both sides of the aisle who believe that we should 
invest in strengthening America's families and a very small group who 
believe that we should continue to borrow to give away money to the 
special interests.
  I want to conclude by reminding my colleagues how we go about making 
these investments, not by raising taxes. They are going to keep saying 
it and saying it and saying it. That's not how we do it. We cut 41 
programs. We slashed earmarks in half. We saved $1 billion.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I would rather not talk about what one party 
did one year and what one party did another year, because I think there 
is substantial support in both parties for the bill that we have before 
us today. I want to walk through what the impact of this cut would be 
on this bill.
  If we pass this amendment, we will be cutting $1.2 billion from No 
Child Left Behind, the President's signature education set of programs. 
We will be cutting $684 million from Title I grants. We will be cutting 
$519 million from IDEA. That's a program which both parties have fought 
for the last 3 days to try to increase.
  We would be cutting $717 million from Pell Grants, reducing 
scholarship awards for millions of students, despite the fact that the 
cost of higher education has gone up by 40 percent the last 5 years. We 
would be cutting $1.4 billion from the National Institutes of Health, 
money that we use to combat cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's and the 
like. We would be cutting $100 million from community health centers, 
denying needed health care and dental services to almost half a million 
people.
  We would be cutting $53 million out of the President's request to 
prepare the country for a potential pandemic flu. We would be cutting 
$320 million from Head Start, $98 million from Child Care Development 
Block Grant. We would be cutting $446 million from the Social Security 
Administration, denying the resources that agency needs to maintain and 
keep open its local offices and reduce backlogs of disability and SSI 
claims.
  So people have a choice. What's more important, their own accounting 
sheets or these investments in the country?
  The fact is, with the exception of the gang of four, virtually every 
Republican who has offered an amendment has done the same thing that 
Democrats have tried to do. They have tried to find ways to increase 
programs that they think are important to the country's future.
  I would submit I don't think those Republicans are out of step, and I 
don't think those Democrats are out of step. I think the folks who are 
out of step are the gang of four offering the amendments.

                              {time}  1345

  I believe that most Americans, and I think most Republicans, would 
rather invest the funds now to prepare our workforce to be better 
trained, our kids to be better educated, and our health care system to 
be more efficient and more and more humane. That is what this bill is 
all about, and I think that there is a bipartisan consensus in this 
House to stick with this bill. So I would urge respectfully rejection 
of the amendment, as I make one other point.
  We have the $1.4 billion initiative of add-ons to try to discourage 
women from having abortions. Instead of lectures, we provide resources 
to make their lives better if they decide to have those kids. This bill 
would cut about 40 percent of that initiative out of the bill. I happen 
to think that initiative is too important to sandbag, and this 
amendment sandbags that effort. So I would urge rejection of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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 Ohio will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 4 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. 4 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced 
     in the amount of $1,517,480,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
July 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues who 
are endeavoring to bring about some responsible spending here in 
Washington. I think this debate is helpful. It is helpful for the 
American people, because what it demonstrates is a difference in 
philosophy.
  Before I get to the specifics of my amendment, I want to mention, we 
have just heard a litany of projects that the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee said would be cut with the previous amendment, 
and he went through: No Child Left Behind cut $1.2 billion; title I, 
$684 million; IDEA, $519 million; Pell Grants, $717 million cut.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, what the American people understand is that 
the amendment that was just proposed would keep funding level. Not cut, 
level, which means that there wouldn't be any decreases over this 
current year of spending; there would be the same amount of money. It 
is what Americans do every year when they have a difficult challenge 
financially.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we have a difficult challenge 
financially this year in our Nation. And, consequently, to label those 
things cuts just isn't so.
  But I rise to offer my amendment, which is affectionately known as 
the Hefley amendment. Former Congressman Joel Hefley from Colorado 
offered this amendment on multiple occasions. It is a 1 percent 
reduction in the increase of this Appropriations bill.
  Now, to look at the big picture, look at where we are in terms of 
numbers right now, this current year enacted for this portion of the 
Federal Appropriations covered $144.6 billion. The President's request, 
the administration's request, as we all know, was less than that, 
$140.9 billion. The bill that we have before us is $151.7 billion; 
$10.8 billion more than the administration's request, more than the 
request of those

[[Page 19806]]

that we charge for running this portion of our Nation.
  My amendment that I am offering now would, instead of having this 
bill be $151.7 billion, would say let's have it be $150.2 billion. So, 
a significant increase over last year but a 1 percent reduction from 
the increase, an increase that would be greater than the rate of 
inflation but a 1 percent reduction than that that comes from the 
committee. And the reason for that is because of the financial 
situation that we find ourselves in as a Nation.
  If you, Mr. Chairman, or I or any of our constituents find themselves 
in a situation where they need to save some money, then oftentimes what 
they will do is say we need to cut back across the board on the kinds 
of things that we are spending. And this amendment simply states that, 
out of a 1 percent cut, we ought to be able to find one penny out of 
every dollar to save for our children's future. And the rationale for 
that is because it is not our money, Mr. Chairman, it is not Congress's 
money. It is the hard-earned money of the American taxpayer. And we 
hear a lot about priorities, and we ought to be prioritizing. And that 
is what budgetary bills are, that is what appropriations bills are, 
making priority judgments for the hard-earned American taxpayer money. 
Our priority on this side is that hardworking American taxpayer.
  So we rise to offer this amendment that we believe to be a 
responsible amendment. It outlines the differences between the two 
sides very clearly. We believe that there ought to be at least one 
penny out of every dollar that we ought to be able to find in terms of 
savings for this area for the next year, and offer it sincerely and 
honestly and respectfully. I would encourage my colleagues to accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's plea. I will 
again remind my colleagues that Republicans and Democrats on a 
bipartisan basis came together in support of these investments in 
America's families. I do not recall the gentleman coming to the floor 
arguing for a 1 percent cutback when it was time to give rich oil 
company executives a $14 billion tax cut.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment but I 
thank the gentleman for offering it, because it reminds us of what this 
debate is really about. We are debating about whether we will invest in 
America's future. We are debating what kind of a Nation we expect to 
be.
  My chairman, fellow committee members of both parties, and the vast 
majority of people around the country believe in America's future. We 
believe that America's best days are ahead of us. We believe that the 
American people can compete and succeed in the global economy, and that 
the most talented, industrious, and ingenious people on Earth are the 
American people. And we believe that, to ensure our bright future, we 
must invest in the American people today.
  The America we see ahead of us is one where every child has the 
opportunity to go to college regardless of whether their parents did 
and regardless of whether they are rich or poor. They receive the best 
job training, develop the strongest skills, are empowered to create by 
laws that reward innovation, and have a government that is working for 
them, not against them, in foreign markets.
  In the America we see, every child and their parents has access to 
decent health care, and no one working full time, playing by the rules 
and contributing to the prosperity of the country, has to become 
impoverished because of the catastrophic illness in the family. No 
parent should have to mourn the loss of a child it could not provide 
health care for, and no child should grow up in a home without one of 
its parents for lack of the same access to care.
  For our parents' generation, this vision of America's future 
resembles their own fondest hopes. Our parents and their parents 
struggled so that we could enjoy a higher quality of living, better 
schools, better hospitals, and a safer world than what they knew. And, 
by and large, this greatest generation was successful. America is a 
better, more prosperous Nation because of their struggle.
  But the generations that went before us did more than struggle; they 
also invested. They built schools, they built hospitals, they built our 
Armed Forces, and they invested in America's future. If America is to 
enjoy the same bright future we have in mind, that investment must go 
on.
  Fortunately, this vision of an America where our best days are still 
ahead of us is a bipartisan vision. It crosses every economic, 
political, and generational line. We all want and believe that we can 
bring about a more secure and more prosperous future for our children 
and grandchildren. And we believe we can do so, must do so, in a 
fiscally responsible way by paying as we go.
  Sure, there are some who do not share these values or who believe 
that we can achieve this bright tomorrow without any investment, 
without any contribution or sacrifice on our part. They are the ``get 
something for nothing'' crowd, the ``I got mine, you get yours'' crowd. 
They do not believe America needs our investment. And the future? Well, 
the future can take care of itself.
  Some of these naysayers you will hear from today, some you have heard 
from already. Masquerading under a banner of fiscal prudence they will 
say, ``We cannot afford the investment.'' It is a masquerade. These are 
the same people, of course, who drove our national debt to the highest 
in history through a half decade of borrowing. And theirs was the worst 
form of borrowing; borrowing that led to no investment and, therefore, 
to no improvement in the Nation's foundation.
  Our parents' generation had them, too, these masqueraders, the 
``something for nothing'' crowd. But just kind of imagine what kind of 
an America we would live in today if our predecessors had followed 
their irresponsible siren song. We would still be traveling along dirt 
roads instead of highways, with crops rotting in the fields, long-term 
economic stagnation, a bleak presence, and an even bleaker future. We 
would, in sum, have become that Nation that Franklin Roosevelt so 
presciently warned against, a Nation with a substantial portion of its 
people ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
  It is indeed fortuitous that these voices are few now and were few 
then, that the overwhelming bipartisan majority of committee members 
and Americans recognize that we have a responsibility to our Nation's 
future, and that responsibility requires sound investment.
  In 10 years, 2.7 million more kids will be in K-12 schools, and 
America will be ready for them because we insist on it. In 10 years, 
2.2 million more students will be in college, and our universities will 
be ready for them with a state-of-the-art education because we insist 
on it. In 10 years, the global economy will be even more extensive and 
American workers will be competing and winning because we will have 
invested in them. And, yes, it is because we are insisting on it now.
  We believe in America's future. We believe our best days are ahead of 
us. And we share the belief that our parents had before us that we are 
responsible for that bright future, and that future requires 
investment.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is available on 
both sides?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I was heartened to hear my good 
friend talk about the promise for the future, because that is exactly 
what we are talking about. We are talking about the future. It was a 
bit of an Orwellian speech there, because the actions of

[[Page 19807]]

this bill don't match the wonderful sunshine that the gentleman paints, 
but that is all right, because that continues to be the mantra that we 
hear.
  Americans know that when you hear the word ``investment'' in this 
Chamber that what that means is taxes, and it points out the 
fundamental difference between the majority party and the minority 
party. The majority party believes that government spends hardworking 
American taxpayer money better than hardworking American taxpayers. 
That is the fundamental difference, and that is what this discussion is 
about. So I am pleased that the gentleman who just spoke shed light on 
that, because he indeed did.
  I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from Oklahoma, 
and look forward to her comments on a fiscally responsible approach to 
this appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I appreciate the good work 
of the committee. And I know it takes a lot of effort to bring people 
together for setting the spending priorities and the policies of our 
Nation, and I know there have been a lot of hearings and testimony on 
this particular piece of legislation. And I want to commend the 
committee for their hard work, both Democrats and Republicans.
  But I do rise to support this amendment. I think it's a reasonable 
amendment, to look at how we can, in this Congress, be more fiscally 
conservative, how we can control our spending.
  I've had so many people come up to me since I've been elected as a 
newly elected freshman saying, we have to do a better job in Congress 
of controlling our spending.
  This particular amendment cuts the budget by 1 percent. The budget 
that has been recommended is $10 billion over last year's. $10 billion 
is more than we spend in the State of Oklahoma's whole State budget. 
$10 billion is more than that. So I think it's reasonable to say that 
we would like to cut this amount by 1 percent. I don't know how people 
can argue with that.
  Now, I've heard a lot of discussion here today about how this piece 
of legislation invests in education, health care, social systems, it's 
for the future of our children; and I don't think you'll find anyone up 
here who will argue against those things.
  I've also heard some people stand up and say today that the 
Republicans like to spend money when it's their turn, but when we're 
spending money, then we're against it.
  Well, when you look at the spending amounts that have occurred over 
the last many years in this Congress I, frankly, don't approve of that. 
I think we have been spending too much money in this Congress, and I'm 
not going to lay blame on either side, other than just to say that a 1 
percent cut in this budget, to me, seems reasonable. There is an 
increase in spending for the important things, social programs, 
education, health care.
  I've also heard some of the people who have spoken today talk about 
the future and about stupid political blunders, spending on policy like 
the Iraq war. Well, I guess we can have that debate, which we have had, 
for many, many months. But what I can say is that the money that has 
been spent by this Congress, and some people have asked, you know, has 
the money gone to wise things? I personally think that protecting our 
Nation, protecting our national security and spending that money is a 
well worth cause.
  We're talking about the priorities that we're going to be having here 
in Congress. Some people have said well, look at the various 
appropriations bills that we've already had that we've been voting on. 
Some were $10 billion more, some were $7 billion more, $12 billion 
more. You didn't object to all the different spending levels that there 
were. When you add all those things up, that adds up to a lot of money.
  And I guess all that is to say that no one in my State has called me 
and said, please tell Congress to spend a little bit more money. Please 
tell them that I'm not paying enough, and I have some more.
  But what I do hear my people back home say is, set the priorities. 
Determine what's reasonable. Be fiscally responsible in how we're 
spending our money.
  People are concerned about the rising cost of gas, the rising cost of 
health care. They're concerned about education, they're concerned about 
taking care of those who can't take care of themselves.
  I think it is reasonable for us to look at a 1 percent cut in this 
budget, but yet still meet the priorities of this Nation in taking care 
of the people that need to be taken care of in this appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman that 
in fact she may not be getting calls from people saying that it's 
harder for their kids to afford college, or that gas prices are getting 
higher, or that they're worried about their health care. But many 
Republicans and Democrats are getting those calls, which is why there 
wasn't a single Republican in the Appropriations Committee who voted 
against this bill.
  The gentlewoman also said that we've got to be fiscally responsible. 
Well, that's why so many Republicans joined us in supporting this bill, 
because in fact this bill cuts 41 programs that didn't make sense any 
more, and reduces by half the number the dollar value of earmarks that 
we had in the past.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate, 
and one of the aspects of it with which I find myself in agreement is 
the assertion by my friend on the other side of the aisle that there is 
a display of differences of opinion and attitudes with regard to the 
way in which we handle our fiscal responsibilities here, and there is 
no question about that.
  If you look at the last 6 years, while the Republican Party has 
controlled every aspect of this government, they managed to succeed to 
almost double the national debt. They now have us in a situation where 
we owe almost $9 trillion, $8.9 trillion.
  They continue to spend, as a result of their initiatives, now, about 
$11 billion a month on Iraq, the illegal invasion of Iraq which they 
perpetrated and are interested in carrying out.
  What we're trying to do here in this particular bill, and in the 
context of our budget responsibilities, is to focus attention on the 
needs of the American people, what we as a Congress ought to be doing 
in the context of our responsibilities, serving the American people, 
doing what's right for them, improving the possibility, the prospects 
of education, making it easier for our children to get the best 
possible education that they can get, making it easier for people to 
get the health care that they need, making it easier for people to deal 
with housing situations and circumstances so that people have proper 
housing.
  In other words, our objectives and our priorities are to improve the 
quality of life of the American people, while your obvious priorities 
and objectives are to decrease the quality of life of the American 
people, which is consistent with your objective in the context of this 
particular amendment.
  You want to reduce the amount of money that is available for 
education, reduce the amount of money that's available for health care, 
reduce the amount of money that's available for housing and other 
things that are essential to the American public, while you keep 
wasting more and more money in Iraq.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair, and again I appreciate the 
gentleman's passion. We believe that in order to improve Americans' 
lives you have got to let them keep more of their hard-earned money and 
that's what this amendment does, allows Americans to keep more of their 
hard-earned money.

[[Page 19808]]

  Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. If the American people, Madam Chairman, are watching 
this debate, they've certainly seen a lot of name calling and a lot of 
shouting, and now we're having our motives questioned. I personally try 
to not go down that road. I assume my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, I'm sure their purposes are noble. But I must admit in the 
4\1/2\ years I've been here, I've certainly been called a lot of names. 
I think this afternoon's the first time I've been called part of the 
fringe. I thought fringe had more to do with curtains. But here we are 
as part of the fringe, I guess, because we believe that the government 
shouldn't grow faster than the people's ability to pay for it. And 
somehow that's being called a fringe opinion.
  We believe that it's the people's money, and not the government's 
money. Yet we are being told by our Democrat colleagues that's a fringe 
opinion.
  We happen to believe that the best housing program and the best 
education program is a paycheck, not a government check; but somehow 
our Democrat colleagues have chosen to tell us that that's a fringe 
opinion.
  And then we hear lectures from our Democrat colleagues saying well, 
when you guys were in the majority you spent too much money. So Madam 
Chairman, their response is well, we're going to spend even more. That 
logic defies me.
  Now, they focus a lot on their noble purposes, Madam Chairman, and 
they focus a lot on the benefits of all this spending that they care to 
do. And again, I would like to point out, this particular amendment 
says that this bill will grow by 3.8 percent instead of 4.8 percent. I 
suppose that's another fringe opinion as well.
  But you know what, Madam Chairman? My friends on the other side of 
the aisle don't focus upon where this money is coming from, and so they 
talk about their investments on behalf of the American people. Well, 
Madam Chairman, maybe the American people want to make their own 
investments.
  You know, I listen to the Ward family in my district from Garland, 
Texas, and they write, ``Dear Congressman, a tax increase in the 
spending is going to fuel the taxes, the largest tax increase in 
American history courtesy of the Democrat Party.'' So all this spending 
in this bill is fostering a tax increase on the American people. So the 
Ward family in Garland says, ``A tax increase this year would wipe out 
my ability to continue my daughter's education.''
  Well, I've got a message for the Ward family in Garland. Don't worry. 
Don't worry about it. The Democrats have an investment that they're 
going to make on your behalf. So don't worry about the $3,000 a year 
they're going to take from you.
  I also heard from the Kincaid family in Garland. ``In my particular 
case, an additional $2,200 in taxes would cut into the finances I use 
to pay for my son's education.''
  The gentleman from Garland, Texas in my district goes on to say, ``I 
really believe that, given more money, Congress will spend more money. 
That's not the answer.''
  Well, I guess we ought to tell the Kincaid family in Garland, Texas, 
don't worry about your son's college education. The Democrats are going 
to make an investment for you.
  I heard from the Brock family in Dallas, Texas, also in my district. 
``Dear Congressman, with this tax increase I could not pay for a 
semester of college for my daughter if I had to send $2,200 more to the 
government.''
  Well, again, we have good news for them. Don't worry about all the 
money that they're taking. The Democrats have an investment for you.
  So, again, Madam Chairman, what our friends on the other side of the 
aisle don't seem to realize is that all this great government spending 
and all these wonderful investments they have are coming out of the 
pockets of the American people. In many respects, we are not having a 
debate over how much this Nation ought to spend on health. We're 
debating who's doing the spending. It ought to be the family.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, it's time for a fact check for the 
American people. The gentleman said, well, we may have spent a lot of 
money; but now you're spending more.
  Fact: This bill saves $1.1 billion over last year.
  Fact: This bill slashes earmark dollar value 50 percent from last 
time.
  Fact: This bill eliminates 41 programs that don't make sense any 
more. Facts count.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, we believe we do have a fringe four 
or five here in the Congress. And it's not, when the gentleman refers 
to me or the gentleman from New York or the chairman, you're talking 
about a bill that passed out of the committee with unanimous support 
from Democrats and Republicans. You will see on the floor it will pass 
with Democrat and Republican votes. This is a bipartisan bill.
  But we have a fringe group in the House that consistently wants to 
try to find out and try to figure out how to make things work. And what 
this bill does is it invests in our future. And the bottom line is 
this. We're now competing with 1.3 billion people in China, 1.2 billion 
people in India, competitive global economy.
  And over the last few years, we've seen for the average American 
people, and the gentleman from Georgia said, well, we want people to 
keep more of their own money. So do we. But they haven't been over the 
past few years.
  There's been a $3,200 increase in their energy costs, a $1,200 
increase in their health insurance, a 40 percent increase in college 
tuition. Wages for college grads in the last 4 or 5 years is down 5.2 
percent.
  Gas prices, the fastest growing part of the budget has been the 
interest payments on the debt. But our bill addresses middle class 
family wages, down $1,669 over the past 2 years. So the American people 
have not been able to keep more of their own money. And so our agenda, 
through this bill and other bills that we have passed addressed that 
issue.
  How do you reduce the cost of energy? You make investments in 
research and development, and that will yield us benefits down the 
line.
  How do you help families send their kids to schools? You invest money 
into the Pell Grant. You cut student loan interest rates in half. And 
the difference really has been with the student loan interest rates, 
we're not spending any more money. What we're saying is that money is 
not going to go to the banks. That money is going to go to the kids and 
the students, and we're going to cut the student loan interest rates in 
half and increase the Pell Grant.
  We have money in here for our community health centers, so kids can 
get preventative care, so they end up they can get treated for a cold, 
instead of ending up in the emergency room for a much higher price to 
the taxpayer. So we're making significant investments. And this bill 
will help secure a strong future for the United States of America.
  We need to get more kids in college. We need to invest in foreign 
languages. That's what this bill does. And I'm proud of this bill, on a 
bipartisan basis.
  And I think it's important for the people, Madam Chairman, who are 
listening as this goes into the Congressional Record. What do they 
want? They want an investment in their future, and that's what this 
bill does. It makes that investment to secure our future and make us 
strong and move us in a new direction.

                              {time}  1415

  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, a lot is being said, a lot of 
numbers are being thrown around, a lot of claims are being made, even 
claims that facts are facts. And I just wanted to clarify a point that 
my good friend from New York made, and that is that this bill saves 
$1.5 billion over last

[[Page 19809]]

year. I don't understand that statement because last year we spent 
$144.7 billion in budget authority, enacted, and this year it is $151 
billion, so almost $8 billion more than last year.
  So the facts, I think, need to be checked. Let's try to be accurate. 
Everybody wants to thump their chest and say what a great party they 
have. But the facts are we are spending $8 billion this year more than 
last if this bill passes.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments that I believe point clearly to what the facts are.
  I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I rise on behalf of the fringe in America. 
Madam Chairman, that would be the fringe that believes that governments 
ought to live within their means, ought to pay their bills, ought to 
balance budgets.
  The gentleman from Ohio, whom I respect and admire his style as a 
legislator and a leader, has coined the phrase ``fringe,'' and I want 
to embrace it. I want to come to this floor and say every American who 
believes that we ought to balance the Federal budget, who believes that 
we ought to come together across the political divide and reform 
entitlements, who believes we ought to wrestle to the ground an $8 
trillion national debt, that fringe is the fringe that I represent in 
America and those with which I proudly stand.
  And let me say I know that number 8 trillion very well. On my way to 
the floor today, I passed the office of clearly a dozen of the 
gentleman from Ohio's colleagues' offices, Democrats all, who anyone 
looking on wouldn't necessarily know, who all have signs in front of 
their office lamenting an $8 trillion national debt. And as the other 
gentleman said, I lament the role of the Republican majority in 
creating that, and I fought members of my own majority in years that we 
saw the debt go from $5 trillion to $8 trillion.
  But I say on behalf of the fringe, the fringe of Americans who say 
governments ought to live within their means, they ought to balance 
budgets, they ought to make the tough choices in a bipartisan way to 
live within the fiscal values that the American people represent, I say 
let's deal with it. And this cut today brought by the gentleman from 
Georgia is a modest step to be sure. It is a 1 percent cut. It says 
instead of doing with a 4.8 percent increase over last year, the 
Federal Government will have to get by on a 3.8 percent increase over 
last year. And it doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask, with an $8 
trillion national debt, for us to come together and begin to trim and 
begin to make the hard choices. But it won't solve the real problem, 
and my cherished colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. 
We have to get past the names; we have to get past the categories, and 
we have to represent the fringe of America that wants to see us balance 
this budget.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Well, Madam Chairman, it is refreshing to hear some candor on the 
other side in their admission that there is a fringe. And that is, in 
fact, a matter of fact because there wasn't a single Republican vote 
against this appropriations bill in committee.
  Now, those who define themselves on the fringe would suggest that the 
answer to America's problems is a 1 percent solution. We can rein in 
our deficit that they built up with a 1 percent cutback.
  I don't know where they were, and I have a very high regard for their 
position, but I do feel an obligation to ask where were they in 
offering amendments to cut $13 billion in giveaways to the richest oil 
company executives making the largest profits in the history of 
humankind? Where was the 1 percent cut amendment then? Suddenly we 
could afford that, but we can't afford additional Pell Grants for the 
steelworker that the gentleman refers to.
  Where were they with an amendment for a 1 percent cut in excessive 
payments to Halliburton, $1.47 billion in payments to Halliburton that 
have been found by the Federal Government to be fraudulent? Where was 
the amendment to cut those payments by 1 percent? We could afford 
excessive and fraudulent payments to Halliburton, but we can't afford 
additional investments in cancer research and access to health care for 
the American people.
  I would respect my colleagues if they showed more consistency. But 
there has not been that consistency. It is not about spending. It is 
about spending on the wrong things and the wrong priorities.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I think I may have the gentleman's answer to where was 
the fringe when the giveaways to the oil companies and the Halliburtons 
were taking place; why wasn't there an effort to cut those giveaways by 
1 percent.
  Those who wanted to cut those profits and those giveaways were not 
part of the fringe. The fringe we are talking about here today is the 
fringe that says we want those obscene oil company profits. We want 
those obscene profits for Halliburton. But we want to cut over $1 
billion out of education, out of health care. That is the fringe we are 
talking about.
  The overwhelming bipartisan majority of us want to balance the 
budget. We are working hard to do that. But we don't want to balance 
the budget on the backs of our kids and on the backs of those who need 
health care and on the backs of our workers who need training. And 
that, I think, is the fringe that we are talking about here today.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
  I will conclude, Madam Chairman, by suggesting that the mainstream 
view, the view that has been endorsed on a bipartisan basis by 
mainstream Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee 
and the American people is that we should make investments in 
education. The fringe view: more oil money for oil companies.
  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 would like to again simply walk us 
through what this cut means in specific terms. This amendment would cut 
$257 million from the President's No Child Left Behind education 
flagship program. It would cut $144 million from title I, denying more 
than 40,000 students those title I services. It would cut $113 million 
from Special Education. It would wipe out every single amendment but 
one that was passed on this floor in the last 2 days to enhance Special 
Education, most of those amendments coming from the Republican side of 
the aisle.
  It would cut $156 million from Pell Grants. It would cut $300 million 
from the National Institutes of Health for medical research in cancer, 
heart disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and the like. It would cut $22 
million from community health centers. Over 100,000 of the uninsured 
would not have access to those services. It would cut $70 million from 
Head Start, $21 million from the Child Care Development Block Grant. It 
would cut $27 million from LIHEAP.
  I want to remind you, in LIHEAP, the bill itself only restores half 
of the cut that was made last year by the President and the Congress.
  It would cut $97 million from the Social Security Administration. 
Members are climbing all over me saying, ``What are we going to do to 
keep my local Social Security offices open? What are we going to do to 
eliminate the multi-month backlog in people applying for Social 
Security disability?'' I will tell you what they are going to do. This 
will add to it. It will add to the problem.
  So with all due respect to the sanctimony that we hear from those who 
belatedly cry about the Federal deficit,

[[Page 19810]]

I didn't hear them crying about the Federal deficit when they voted to 
spend $600 billion on an ill-advised war in Iraq. I don't hear them 
crying about the fact that $57 billion in tax cuts for millionaires 
adds $57 billion to the Federal deficit.
  So I just think we need to recognize that I believe the vast majority 
of Americans and I believe substantial portions of both parties in this 
House believe that this bill is responsible in real dollar terms. All 
of the domestic appropriation bills that we will produce and have 
produced this year amount to a 1 percent increase in real terms.
  One of the gentlemen over there claimed that these were not cuts. 
Well, let me tell you something. If you appropriate the same amount of 
money this year that you appropriated last year but inflation eats away 
at that and so does population growth, if you don't adjust for 
inflation and population growth, then to each recipient of the services 
under this legislation there is indeed a cut to them. And that is what 
counts. It is the impact on their pocketbook. It is the impact on their 
ability to get help to send their kids to school.
  It is an impact on the couple in my District who called 31 dentists 
to try to get some help with their kid who had to have the braces taken 
off his teeth. They couldn't get any of them to take them because the 
dentists wouldn't take Medicaid patients. They didn't have a local 
clinic. So the mother held the kid down while the father took the 
braces off with a pair of pliers.
  That wouldn't happen to any child of a Member of Congress. The 
gentleman is smiling about that. I don't think that is anything to 
smile about. I met that woman.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, sir.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The conversation that I was having with my 
assistant to the right resulted in my glee, not to your comment.
  Mr. OBEY. I understand.
  But let me simply say, Madam Chairman, these cuts, these will be cuts 
in terms of the services that we are trying to provide to these people. 
It is immoral. It is unconscionable that we allow 44 million Americans 
to go without health insurance.
  This bill will deliver health care coverage to 2 million more 
Americans than got it last year. It will make up in a tiny way for the 
indifference, the massive indifference, which has characterized this 
country the past few years on the issue of health coverage.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and support for the 
underlying bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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.

                              {time}  1430


               Amendment No. 23 offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 0.5 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, the amendment that I'm offering today 
to this appropriations bill would make a cut of just one-half of 1 
percent of the overall funding of the bill.
  You know, my friends on the other side of the aisle, Madam Chairman, 
are talking about how we are ``fringe'' Members of the House of 
Representatives. You know, when I go into my district and I talk to 
people, one thing that they really want Congress to do is rein in 
spending. We hear lots of individuals say, you know, we have to live 
within our family budget, how come Congress doesn't have to do that? I 
was proud to be in the State legislature in Colorado where we had an 
amendment to our Constitution forcing us to live within our means, so 
to speak, in the State of Colorado. We could not spend money that we 
didn't have.
  Well, here in the Federal Government, it seems that even though as I 
walk down the hallways of the office buildings, the Longworth House 
Office Building, I see many signs on easels out in the hall talking 
about our $8.8 trillion debt. We are being constantly reminded of that. 
And you know what? I think that is very appropriate. I think every 
American ought to see that placard and see what we have, $8.8 trillion 
debt.
  And as I think about that, I'm just offering the Members of Congress 
yet another opportunity to do the right thing, the right thing being 
exercising fiscal discipline, just a modicum of fiscal discipline, 1.5 
percent. So the increase in this bill would go from 4.8 increase to 
4.3. Now, some people would miscategorize that as a cut. It is not a 
cut. It is still an increase in spending of 4.3 percent.
  So I would ask my colleagues to identify with the American people who 
admire people who can live within their means, who don't spend money 
that they really don't have, but show the discipline to do the right 
thing.
  And I'm asking for this cut today. How many people can visualize a 
$100 bill? You give someone a $100 bill and say I want you to spend 
this wisely, but let's just save 50 cents of that $100 bill. How many 
people would say that that was unreasonable?
  Madam Chairman, I'm saying today that this Congress needs to start on 
the right path. I'm asking for a .5 percent amendment to this 
appropriation bill.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Well, another fringe offering. Now we're down to .5 
percent. The solution to America's problems is now down to .5 percent. 
The solution to America's problems is now down to .5 percent, less Pell 
Grant money so the kids can go to college, higher fuel bills in the 
winter for people who can't pay their fuel bills. I never saw a .5 
percent reduction in funds to Halliburton. I never saw a .5 percent 
reduction in the $13 billion in giveaways to Big Oil company 
executives, who are making the world's greatest profits. But now 
suddenly, when it comes to reducing people's heating bills or reducing 
their college costs, we want them to have another .5 percent burden 
because the burden they have just isn't enough.
  This is deja vu all over again. It was a bad idea on the amendment 
before this. It was a bad idea on the amendment before that. It's still 
a bad idea, it's just down to a .5 percent bad idea.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman.
  And since my friends on the other side of the aisle have embraced 
their fringeness, I would like to just point out to you from the Roll 
Call today, around the Hill there is a festival, 11-day play, this 
weekend. I know many of you go home, so many of your staff may want to 
attend this, it's the Capitol Fringe Festival. So you may be able to 
attend and completely embrace the fringeness.
  But again, as the gentleman has said, Madam Chair, when we first got 
in the majority in January, we tried to pass out of this House, in our 
Six in '06, provisions that we passed, campaigned on and then passed. 
One of the provisions was to strip $14 billion from the oil

[[Page 19811]]

companies. And our friends, who are now wanting to take this money from 
Pell Grants and investments in education, investments in health care, 
voted against stripping the oil companies of $14 billion. And this is 
what we're talking about.
  This bipartisan committee passed out of the committee unanimously, on 
support of the Republicans on that committee, with the support of the 
Democrats on this committee, well thought-out pieces of legislation, 
well thought-out amendments in the committee, supported unanimously by 
both sides. And what we're saying is, we have to make these 
investments.
  And there is no tax increase in this year's budget, none, zero, 
that's it. You can't point it out. In 2007, keep your forms, 2006, or 
last year's forms, and compare them to next year's, and there will be 
not one dime of an increase. All we did was we took that money that our 
friends were giving to the banks and we invested that money in the 
kids. The $14 billion that was going to the oil companies at their 
times of highest profits is going into health care and education now 
and alternative energy.
  As I said earlier, this is very simple. We're in a globally 
competitive market, and we need to make investments into our kids and 
into our future. That's what this bill does.
  Now what you're saying is, with tuition costs going up 40 percent, 
health insurance going up $100 a year, and energy costs going up $3,200 
a year, that the solution to that problem and every other problem we 
have in the country right now is a .5 percent cut that would put 
additional burdens on families who are trying to send their kids to 
school, would reduce the money that we're making into making our 
citizens healthier and community health clinics so that at the end of 
the day would allow us to prevent people from ending up in the 
emergency room and costing us billions and billions of dollars more.
  These are good investments, voted on in a bipartisan way, and will 
secure the strength of our country in the future.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, I won't be at the Fringe Festival this 
weekend, I will be going home to Colorado. I will be talking to the 
folks that are working hard every day, raising their children, trying 
to make ends meet, and worrying about higher taxes. And I think they 
should be worrying about higher taxes because when we have increases 
like this, we're going to see those placards in the hallway with a 
national debt ever increasing.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kline).
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for 
yielding, and for her excellent, truly excellent amendment.
  I have been following the debate for some time now. Like many of our 
colleagues, sometimes we have to follow it in our office as we are 
conducting other business. And I hate that we have stooped to sort of 
name calling, which unfortunately I have seen.
  I guess the gentleman from Ohio says that we're embracing the 
``fringe'' label, and so therefore I suppose I'm down here to make the 
fringe larger. And I guess there is a little humor in that, and I will 
just take it in that sense because I'm sure my friend from Ohio didn't 
mean any harm by it.
  But as my good friend, Mr. Pence, said in his comments, that if the 
fringe are those hardworking Americans who think they make better 
decisions on how to spend the money that they earn than we do here in 
Congress, then I'm in the right place.
  We heard that this amendment, this very modest amendment to look for 
.5 percent savings would place an increased burden, a .5 percent 
increased burden on the American people. There is no question that the 
largest tax increase in American history will place a huge burden on 
the working families of America.
  And with all respect to my good friend and colleague from Ohio, the 
Democrats' budget, in order to balance as the rules require by the end 
of the budget period, does impose the largest tax increase in American 
history. And already we're starting to see the majority party have to 
start to pay the price for some of the budget gimmicks that have been 
involved in making that work.
  Now, the Democrats, while increasing spending, it seems like almost 
across the board, certainly in the Department of Labor, couldn't manage 
to keep the spending for the Office of Labor Management Standards at 
last year's level. There they could find the cut. When it came to the 
office whose responsibility is to find the crooks who are stealing from 
union members, they found a way to impose a 4 percent cut in that 
office. And what a shame that is.
  I offered an amendment, it received some bipartisan support, but 
nevertheless, on a largely partisan basis, that amendment was defeated. 
That amendment would have just restored the funding to last year's 
level for the only office in government who has the responsibility and 
the capability to hunt down and catch the crooks that steal from our 
American workers, but the majority party could find a way to cut there.
  So, I think that the choice here is clear. It's been stated by many 
of my colleagues. Many of us, fringe or not fringe, believe that the 
American people can make better decisions on how to spend their money, 
and we should let them do it.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chair, I would just pose a question to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado and would yield to her for a response.
  I am just curious as to how public education is funded in the State 
of Colorado.
  I will yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. The public education system in Colorado is funded by 
tax dollars, primarily coming from property taxes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman's proposal 
would impose an across-the-board cut in No Child Left Behind. No Child 
Left Behind is a Federal program that local school districts must 
honor. It is a huge unfunded Federal mandate. And I don't know about 
the gentlewoman's school districts, but I know that my school districts 
come to me all the time saying, Washington is forcing us to do these 
programs, but they're not giving us the money that they promised, which 
means that we have to raise taxes.
  And so I would respectfully suggest to the gentlewoman that a .5 
percent cut in this bill is a .5 percent property increase in her 
congressional district, because those poor school districts don't have 
the ability to say yes or no to those programs. They've just got to 
provide the services and find the money for it.
  We don't think that local property taxpayers should have to bear that 
burden. We believe, along with every single Republican in the 
Appropriations Committee, that the Federal Government should assist in 
those programs.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I wanted to take a moment to address the nature of the proposed 
amendment, and the amendment before it, and perhaps the amendment after 
it, the whole nature of the across-the-board amendments. Because I 
think the beauty of across-the-board amendments, in the eyes of the 
authors of those amendments, is that they're anonymous in their cuts; 
they're anonymous in the pain they distribute. They can go home to 
their district and say, oh, I'm not in favor of cutting education, I'm 
in favor of across-the-board cuts. Or I'm not in favor of cutting home 
heating oil for people, no, that would lack compassion, but I am for 
across-the-board cuts. What's a 1 percent cut? What's a half of 1 
percent cut? Well, what it is is hundreds of millions of dollars taken 
out of education or out of home heating oil or out of health care or 
out of cancer research or out of special education.
  So let's not take ourselves off the hook here. And I would be willing 
to yield to my colleague from Colorado.
  Do you support cuts in home heating oil assistance? Are you ready to 
stand up here and say to your constituents, yes, I am for cutting home 
heating assistance? Do you support cuts in special education? Are you 
willing to say

[[Page 19812]]

here today to your constituents that I support cuts in special 
education? I support cuts in abstinence programs. I support cuts in 
cancer research. Would you tell us if you support cuts in home heating 
assistance?
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Well, there is a thing called ``Orwellian speak.'' And 
when we have a bill that has a 4.8 percent increase and we go to 4.3, 
that is not a cut.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, I will be happy to yield if you will 
answer the question. The question is, do you support cutting home 
heating oil assistance? It's a yes or no question, it's not 
complicated. Do you support cutting heating home assistance for poor 
people? Yes, I support it?
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Well, if the gentleman would yield, that funding is 
increased in this legislation, and you know it.
  What is at issue here is how do you define ``cut''? 4.8 to 4.3 
increase.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time. I'm not surprised that I can't get a 
yes or no answer. I'm not surprised that the gentlewoman is not willing 
to stand up and say, yes, I support cutting this because I have other 
priorities. Home heating oil, that's not one of them. Large oil 
industry profits, that's one of my priorities. Halliburton, that's one 
of my priorities. But cutting heating oil, that's not a priority, or 
cutting special ed.
  Let me ask you another question; do you think that cuts in college 
education funding, higher education funding, can be done without 
cutting the number of kids who have access to college? Do you think we 
can cut funding from this bill for higher education funding without 
reducing the number of kids that can go to college?
  And you say, it's just half a percent we're cutting from higher ed, 
or the increase in higher ed, or however you want to phrase it. But the 
cut is real that you're proposing. So what does that mean? 25,000 more 
kids can't go to college?

                              {time}  1445

  Is that a fair number? Well, maybe that is too much. Should we say 
10,000 more American kids can't go to college because of your cut? Is 
that a fair number? Would you support that? Would you support your 
amendment if you knew that?


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair and to follow customary courtesy in 
the process of yielding and reclaiming time.
  The gentleman may continue.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Through the Chair, in my remaining time, I would ask the 
gentlewoman from Colorado whether she is willing to support her cuts if 
she knows that it will mean fewer children in Colorado can go to 
college.
  I would be happy to yield for an answer to this question. Through the 
Chair, to my colleague from Colorado, if her cuts mean that fewer of 
her constituents in Colorado can go to college, is she still willing to 
propose those cuts?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, I think what I should do is purchase a 
dictionary and have my friend on the other side of the aisle look up 
what a cut is.
  When you go from 4.8 percent increase in spending and you take away 
.5, you end up with a 4.3 percent increase in spending. That is what 
this legislation does. Even with this modest amendment that I offer, it 
would still be a 4.3 percent increase.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Madam Chairman, I have been enjoying hearing the debate 
here today. As usual, sometimes Republicans and Democrats appear to be 
passing each other a little bit in the night. It seems to me from 
hearing comments now from a number of Democratic speakers that there is 
an implicit assumption based on all of their arguments, and that is, 
hey, this is important, education is important, and this is important, 
and heating oil is important, and all this stuff; therefore, the 
government has to do it all for everybody.
  Now, I think the other assumption, and this is the assumption that I 
make, is that Americans are buying an awful lot more government than we 
can afford. That is what my constituents are telling me. That is common 
sense. Going back to my district, things are getting more and more 
expensive. We keep increasing everything that government does.
  The idea is, well, you are not compassionate because you don't want 
to add more money to government subsidies to do this and government 
subsidies to do that. Hey, the logical conclusion on that is the 
government would get 100 percent of your paycheck. I don't think that 
is why we are competitive.
  I have also heard people say that we are in a global economy, as 
though being in a global economy somehow excuses that the Federal 
Government should do everything for everybody. I am not buying that 
assumption. The reason we are competitive in a global economy is 
because of free enterprise. There is one thing about a safety net. But 
we are buying too much government.
  To add insult to injury, now the Democrats have just passed the 
biggest tax increase in the history of the United States. They are 
griping about one-half of 1 percent of a cut in one little bill in 
discretionary income, and they are adding the average of $3,000 per 
household across this entire Nation. Now, it would be interesting 
enough if they just add $3,000. The trouble with doing that this year 
is, guess what, you will get the $3,000 next year and the next year 
after that and the next year after that. But the spending is even more.
  So we are hearing an objection, and it is all couched in this, oh, 
don't you care about poor people with fuel oil heating bills and about 
education and stuff. The trouble is, we are spending too much. What 
part of that don't we get? So somebody offers this timid little 
amendment for one-half of 1 percent, and it is like the wheels are 
going to fall off.
  I have to say in answer to the questions, look, we are just buying 
too much government. We have to start somewhere. I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's amendment. She is at least starting on one piece of one 
bill here. While I call it a little bit of a timid amendment, I am 
certainly prepared to vote for it.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I would yield to the gentlewoman if she cares to 
answer this: The committee report states that the committee recommends 
$15,027,000 for prevention grants to reduce the abuse of runaway youth. 
Does the gentlewoman advocate a .5 percent reduction in a $15 million 
budget to prevent the abuse of runaway youth, which was supported 
unanimously in the committee?
  Madam Chairman, I will yield to the gentlewoman.
  If the gentlewoman can't answer, I will ask her to give us an answer 
to this: the committee report, unanimously approved in committee, 
recommends $42,430,000 for community-based child abuse prevention.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman whether she is 
advocating a .5 percent reduction in a $42 million line item for 
community-based child abuse prevention. I would be happy to yield to 
the gentlewoman for an answer.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I will yield to the gentlewoman for an answer, since it 
is her amendment. I will not, at this time, yield to the gentleman.
  I would like to yield to the gentlewoman, since it is her amendment.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. If I may answer your question, first, I would like to 
point out that, I just realized this, up here to my right in the front 
of the room, in the front of the Chamber, there is a dictionary. 
Perhaps the gentleman would like to look up the word

[[Page 19813]]

``cut.'' Perhaps the gentleman would like to look up the word 
``rationalization.'' Because the gentleman knows that there is still an 
increase of 4.3 percent in this bill, even with this modest amendment.
  You know what? You can rationalize anything. You can be altruistic 
with someone else's money. We need to curb spending.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time.
  Madam Chairman, I am using the terms the gentlewoman insists on. I am 
reading directly from the committee report. The committee report states 
that there is $26,848,000 for adoption opportunities. Because we all 
want to reduce the number of abortions in the United States, so there 
is $26,848,000 for adoption opportunities. The gentlewoman's amendment 
would, as I understand it, reduce by .5 percent the amounts that are in 
this bill.
  So, Madam Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman again, and I will yield to 
her, is she advocating a .5 percent reduction in the committee 
recommendation of $26,848,000 for adoption opportunities?
  I will yield to the gentlewoman, since it is her amendment.
  If she cares not to take the time, I will ask the gentleman. I will 
yield to the gentleman if he can answer this, Madam Chairman. I would 
yield to the gentleman, if he would choose to answer this question.
  The committee report recommends $9.5 million, out of a $2.5 trillion 
Federal budget, $9.5 million for the adoption incentives programs. I 
would ask, Madam Chairman, whether the gentleman supports a .5 percent 
reduction in adoption incentives.
  I would also ask, Madam Chairman, this: the committee recommends a 
total level of funding of $141 million for the Community Based 
Abstinence Education program. That is the level of funding that the 
committee, on a unanimous basis, Republicans in the mainstream and 
Democrats in the mainstream, agree on.
  I will yield to the gentleman, Madam Chairman, if he can say is it 
the position of the fringe that we should actually cut by .5 percent 
$141 million for Community Based Abstinence programs.
  I will yield to the gentleman, Madam Chairman.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I would like to point out 
to the gentleman that under his logic that $141 million proposed in 
here is actually a cut, because it is a cut from $150 million. It is a 
$9 million cut from $150 million. Why aren't we spending $150 million?
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. You see, you only can measure from what--
--
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to follow customary courtesy in 
the process of yielding and reclaiming time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
  I would just state at some point, two plus two has to equal four. It 
can't equal what you want it to be; it has to equal four.
  These are the amounts of funding that are in this bill, reported by 
Republicans and Democrats. Every single mainstream Republican, every 
conservative Republican on the Appropriations Committee, supported 
these numbers. The gentlewoman says, no, no, we have to shave .5 
percent from these numbers.
  I am still waiting to hear whether a single Member on that side would 
publicly say that they want to cut adoption programs, abstinence 
programs, runaway youth programs, child abuse programs.
  I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I hate to interrupt this beautiful 
debate going on, but I think it is important for us to make a point. We 
offered our friends in the fringe an opportunity within the first 100 
hours we were here to strip $14 billion from the oil companies, 
corporate welfare that they were getting from the United States 
taxpayers, and you all voted against it, or at least most of you did. 
You had a chance for $14 billion from the oil companies. But you choose 
to come here now and take it out of the hide of the students and the 
middle-class families who are trying to make ends meet.
  That is the difference. This is a change in priorities. You had a 
chance for $14 billion from the oil companies. You were silent. Now you 
choose to do it for programs that are going to make us stronger in the 
long run.
  So I thank the gentleman, I thank the Chair, I thank the ranking 
member for putting together such a great bill here, and I think we 
should leave it as it is and not ask the people who have had increased 
energy costs, a 40 percent tuition increase, now to say wait a minute, 
we don't want to help you with that. We want to cut that by .5 percent, 
too.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, since we had a rudimentary arithmetic 
thing here, two plus two equals four, I just want to remind my friend, 
Madam Chairman, that a 4.8 percent increase minus .5 percent still 
equals a 4.3 percent increase in spending.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Florida 
(Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. I thank the gentlewoman.
  I would suggest that the real math is that this amendment would still 
anticipate a $6.5 billion increase, yet it is being called a cut.
  I had to come down from my office, because I heard that if you were 
an advocate for taxpayers, you are now part of the fringe of this 
Congress. If you are an advocate for fiscal responsibility, suddenly 
you are part of the fringe. Sadly, I would have to acknowledge, if you 
care about fiscal responsibility and taxpayers in this Congress, you 
are becoming part of the fringe.
  Increasing the budget expenditures by 4.3 percent is somehow going to 
lead to the end of civilization and the death of all of the children 
out there and throwing people out of hospital beds.
  I would remind all of my colleagues, we have a 10th amendment in this 
country. Over the years, we now have a $150 billion-plus annual budget 
to deal with things like labor, health care and education. It isn't a 
question of whether or not we are going to spend money in America on 
health care and education. It is a question of who does the spending 
and who gets to control it.
  I would ask every American, as the Federal budget has skyrocketed and 
we have taken control and micromanaged their health care and education, 
has public education gotten cheaper? Has it gotten better? Has 
America's health care system, as we spend so much money on health care, 
gotten cheaper and gotten better?
  Winston Churchill once famously said, there is nothing one government 
learns so readily from the last as how to spend other people's money, 
i.e., the taxpayers.
  Sadly, this new majority did not learn the lesson that some of us 
learned in the last several Congresses: we are spending too much, we 
are abusing American taxpayers, and the notion is that if you care for 
children, if you care for people that need health care, you have to 
confiscate as much money out there from taxpayers and working people as 
possible and you have to micromanage the way it gets spent on so-called 
``their behalf.''
  The bureaucrats are happy. The regulators are happy. The politicians 
in Washington are fat and happy. But the American taxpayer and the 
people that need real education services and need choices in health 
care are not happy.
  With that, on behalf of the fringe that cares about taxpayers in this 
Congress, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, as I hear the comments from my friends 
on the other side of the aisle, I would almost remember when my 
children were small and they actually believed in Santa Claus. They 
thought that whatever they wanted, they could have. We had to learn 
some lessons.

[[Page 19814]]

They had a wish-list, and then we had to live within our means.
  When I think of the good things, and, by the way, I am very happy to 
hear that my friend on the other side of the aisle supports abstinence 
education, when I hear about spending in these areas, there is a finite 
amount of money. When you are promoting government programs, you are 
reaching into the pocket of the taxpayer. That is the only place we get 
our money, from the American taxpayer. And as we think about the 
largest tax increase in history, I think we ought to realize this 
burden, and I just picture this enormous burden on our children and our 
grandchildren that we are leaving.
  In the meantime, we can be proud of our spending, because we are 
spending for very noble things, and there are very many noble things in 
this bill.

                              {time}  1500

  But what we are doing is we are crushing our children and our 
grandchildren with this $8.8 trillion debt, this $8.8 trillion debt 
that is growing under this majority.
  I was one of the ones in the back of the room, you're right, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are right. We spent too much. 
The Republican Party are guilty of that.
  But there were those of us who were budget hawks then that said our 
party not only should cut taxes but should restrain spending. We were 
saying that and we are saying it now as we see the majority party going 
down the road at an even more rapid pace, spending more money, 
increasing that enormous burden on our children and grandchildren.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I will make the same observation as I made 
last night. What we have going on here, in my judgment, is Operation 
Diversion. You have a bunch of people in this House who are perfectly 
comfortable with the fact that the tax policies that they have voted 
for will deliver $57 billion in tax cuts this year to people who make 
over a million dollars a year. That is five times as much money as the 
increase that we have in this bill above the President's request.
  And you have people who have voted for the war in Iraq, which has 
spent $600 billion in a case of mistaken identity as they mistook the 
stocky guy with the mustache, Saddam Hussein, for the tall guy with the 
beard, Osama bin Laden, and that mistake has cost us $600 billion when 
you take into account the President's newest request. That is 60 times 
as much as the addition we have above the President's budget for these 
programs.
  They voted for all of that, and now they want to scramble away from 
the deficits and the debt that that has produced. And they try to 
divert the attention of the public and say, oh, the real cause of our 
fiscal mess is the fact that these crazy Democrats are trying to put 
more money into education and more money into health care and more 
money into job training.
  Well, I plead fully guilty. We are trying to do that because yes, we 
do believe that these are investments. We think that kids are better 
off if you put more money into education than if you take it away. And 
we think society is better off economically and morally if we do more 
to help people who need health care than less.
  Now this amendment would cut the following amounts from the bill: It 
would cut $128 million from this bill for No Child Left Behind.
  It would cut $74 million from Title I.
  It would cut $56 million from IDEA. Republicans and Democrats alike 
have spent the last 2 days trying to increase funds for IDEA; now they 
want to cut it back by $56 million.
  They want to cut from this bill $78 million for Pell Grants, despite 
the fact that college costs have exploded.
  They want to cut $148 million from this bill for the National 
Institutes of Health.
  They want to cut $48 million from this bill for the Social Security 
Administration.
  They want to cut $69 million from this bill out of programs that we 
have here to try to discourage women from having abortions. Now if they 
want to vote for that, be my guest. We don't happen to think, and I 
think there are significant numbers of our friends on the minority side 
of the aisle who don't happen to think that is a good idea.
  We do have to make choices, and the basic choices here are do we want 
to defend the 2 percent increase in these programs above the 
President's level, because that is what it is, it is a 2 percent 
difference. And if you don't believe my definition, then take a look at 
CQ and National Journal because that is the way they define it.
  Do you want to put 2 percent more into the health and education of 
the country, into the training of our workforce, or do you instead want 
to use it for additional money in Iraq and additional money for tax 
cuts for the most wealthy people in this country, most of whom would 
gladly see a reduction in their take if we could improve the quality of 
our workforce and the quality of our education and the quality of our 
law enforcement?
  I plead fully guilty to agreeing with them, and I would ask for a 
``no'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado will be 
postponed.


         Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 0.25 percent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, first of all, I am happy 
to stand up here and identify myself with, as the majority party says, 
``the fringe.'' You know, you may have noticed recently that the 
approval ratings for this Congress are not very good. In fact, I think 
the latest I saw was that only 17 percent of Americans believe that 
this Congress is doing a good or a fair job. So I guess that being on 
the fringe of this Congress is meaning that we agree and associate 
ourselves with 83 percent of the American people. I would tell my 
friends on the majority that I am very happy to be on the fringe in 
Washington but on the mainstream outside of Washington.
  And the mainstream outside of Washington wants to keep their own 
money to spend it on what they want. And they believe, Madam Chairman, 
even if the other side doesn't, Americans believe, and they are right, 
that government wastes some of their tax money. And what this proposed 
amendment does is it would increase spending on this bill by 4.6 
percent instead of 4.8 percent. It is a reduction over what is proposed 
by a quarter of a percent. A quarter of a percent. It still provides an 
increase of $6.6 billion over last year.
  So under this amendment if there is a government program that is 
scheduled to get a million dollars, it would instead have to struggle 
through on $997,500.
  Madam Chairman, I would ask you, I understand that it appears that 
the Members of the majority party believe

[[Page 19815]]

that life as we know it will end if that million-dollar government 
program must exist on $997,500, but I don't think that the majority of 
Americans feel that.
  Let me point out again that first of all this amendment is not a cut 
because one equals one. Two is more than one even if you want three. So 
this amendment still enables a gigantic $6.6 billion increase in 
spending on this bill. But what it would do is it would put $379 
million back in taxpayers' pockets, back towards deficit reduction. So 
it is not a cut.
  The other thing that is amazing to me in this whole debate and 
discussion is there seems to be a direct correlation on the majority 
side between how much you spend on something and the outcome you are 
going to get. If that were the case, you could take every school in 
America, line them up by how much money is spent per student and you 
should see a direct correlation with the outcomes with how those 
students succeed out of school.
  Well, there are many situations where there are schools spending 
$3,000 to $4,000 a student significantly outperforming schools spending 
10, 12, $15,000 per student in the same place.
  Why if there were a direct correlation between how much you spend on 
something and the outcome, then wouldn't Paris Hilton be the most well-
adjusted kid on the planet; and I think perhaps she is not.
  So does anybody out there believe that in this gigantic bill of 
billions and billions of dollars, that there is not one-quarter of a 
percent of waste, that is not one-quarter of a percent less that any 
given agency could do without than they have now?
  Now I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to 
have a very difficult time understanding what it means to save the 
taxpayers a little money, what it means to ask government to be a 
little more efficient, so I would like to explain it to you 
graphically, if I may.
  This, Madam Chairman, represents 100 percent of a government program. 
I have used a donkey because I feel that is something that the majority 
party has some familiarity with. This represents 100 percent of a 
government spending program.
  Let's look and see what we have seen so far. There was an amendment 
to reduce this program which has already been increased by 1 percent, 
so there is 99 percent of a government spending program.
  Madam Chairman, I would suggest perhaps people in the gallery and 
people at home may not even be able to tell much of a difference. But 
the majority party rejected that.
  The amendment from the lady from Colorado was a half a percent 
reduction, so here is 99\1/2\ percent of a government spending program. 
Looks to me like that donkey is pretty much intact. I think it could 
probably survive. But that was rejected just a moment ago by the 
majority party.
  So here is one last chance, one more chance. I would ask my 
Democratic colleagues: Can this government program survive like that 
with 99.75 percent of its spending? You know what, I think the American 
people will look at this and say yeah, they can. You know what that 
means, it means that $379 million back in the American people's pockets 
and back to reduce this deficit and hopefully leading us towards no 
longer stealing the Social Security surplus. I don't think they see 
much difference here, but they will see a difference at home.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15 
minutes.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I appreciate all these donkeys on 
posters. We won't say anything about the 3 trillion elephants that 
ought to be on these posters, the $3 trillion in debt that part of this 
fringe has supported when they wanted to spend more money on 
Halliburton, more money on tax cuts for big oil companies, didn't see 
any amendments to cut those amendments. Now we see amendments to cut or 
reduce the amount of spending and investment in other funds.
  I would, Madam Chairman, through the Chair, ask the gentleman that if 
we were, you know, I guess in Washington two plus two can equal 
whatever you want it to be if you listen to other side, Madam Chairman. 
But I would like to, using the gentleman's own definition of cuts and 
no cuts and using his posters, I would ask the gentleman, Madam 
Chairman, and I'd be happy to yield to him through the Chair.
  The gentleman seeks a cut, an actual cut, in Abandoned Infants 
Assistance. Now, this isn't a cut in any increased investment, I would 
say to the Chair. In fact, funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance is 
at $11,835,000 for abandoned infants, and if the gentleman would read 
the report, he would note that it says this amount is the same as the 
fiscal year 2007 funding level. No increase here.
  Madam Chairman, I would ask the gentleman through the Chair whether 
he is standing on this floor advocating an actual cut in the Abandoned 
Infant Assistance Program match.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from California if he would like 
to answer that specific question.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Thank you. You know, the question before 
us is $11.8 million, as I mentioned to you before, is a cut from $12.5 
million. So the question I would ask you back is, well, why is it not 
$12.5 million?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I reclaim my time. The gentleman has argued that a cut's 
really not a cut because the rate of spending is increasing. The rate 
of spending does not increase in this program, Madam Chairman. It is 
the same spending as last year, which means that the gentleman's cut is 
an actual, concrete, specific, documented reduction in Abandoned 
Infants Assistance from last year.
  Madam Chairman, I would go on to another program and through the 
Chair ask the gentleman if he would like to, since he was unable to 
give me a yes or no answer on the last example, I will provide another 
one.
  Madam Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman if he would like. Is 
the gentleman advocating an actual cut in community-based child abuse 
prevention? Because the funding for community-based child abuse 
prevention is not increased in this budget, not by a penny, and so the 
gentleman's cut actually reduces it below last year's level.
  Madam Chairman, does the gentleman advocate to his constituents a cut 
in community-based child abuse prevention? And I would yield to the 
gentleman if he desires to respond.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Thank you for yielding. You know, I was 
trying to do the math on the previous one. I guess the question before 
us is this: can the program you described before, because I'm a little 
behind on my math here, that was $11.8 million, can it survive on 
$11.78 million? Is that going to mean the end of the world as we know 
it? Is that going to mean that this program is devastated? Are you 
telling me that there is not a quarter of a percent that any agency or 
any program in government can find that they can do their job as well?
  Mr. ISRAEL. Reclaiming my time, I'm suggesting that it was more than 
a quarter percent when it came to a $13 billion tax cut for the biggest 
oil company executives on Earth, and it was more than a quarter percent 
cut when it came to excessive fraudulent payments to Halliburton.
  But when it comes to runaway youth, domestic violence, law and order, 
abandoned infants, anti-gang programs, I would rather that the money go 
to those investments rather than to special interests.
  So I would ask, again, to the gentleman through the Chair, is the 
gentleman advocating a cut in adoption opportunities because the 
adoption opportunities program, Madam Chairman, is funded without an 
increase at the same level as last year. Would the gentleman agree, 
Madam Chairman, that the cut that he proposes means an actual cut in 
the program for adoption

[[Page 19816]]

opportunities from last year's level? At least can we agree that two 
plus two equals four or four minus two equals two. Can we at least 
agree on that, Madam Chairman?
  And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I guess that means that you have proposed 
a cut in that program if it's already below where it was. So I guess 
you had proposed a cut in that program. So I would ask you, I guess, if 
you cut that program, you must have some reason that you believe that 
it should be cut.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I reclaim my time one more time, and then I will reserve 
the balance of my time. The gentleman has offered an amendment to 
actually cut programs. We have listed, Madam Chairman, a variety of 
programs that didn't receive one penny of increase in this budget, in 
this appropriation, and I've asked the gentleman will the gentleman 
acknowledge that his amendment is an actual cut on these programs: 
adoption assistance, abstinence, anti-gang activities, safe and stable 
families, domestic violence. Is it actually a cut below last year's 
level? Yes or no, and I would yield to the gentleman for a yes or no 
answer.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. If you already established it as a cut 
below last year's level, then yes, it is. But I would ask the gentleman 
that, is the gentleman proposing to increase the deficit, which, with 
this amendment, the deficit would go down and taxpayers would have more 
money?
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment and 
this appropriations bill saves $1.1 billion.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair must ask Members to bear in mind the principle that proper 
courtesy in the process of yielding and reclaiming time in debate, and 
especially in asking another to yield, helps to foster the spirit of 
mutual comity that elevates our deliberations above mere argument. 
Members, when yielded to, should defer to the yielding member when he 
or she reclaims the time.
  The gentleman may continue.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Blunt, the gentleman from 
Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
thank him for bringing this amendment to the floor.
  I'd actually thought, based on the other things I was doing today, 
that the case was being well-made that a $7 billion increase is an 
increase. And I didn't plan to come to the floor this afternoon. I had 
a number of other things I was working on that I thought were 
important. I was watching the debate and assuming that the case was 
being well-made until I heard in the last debate that a 4.3 percent 
increase was a cut. And I was so stunned by that, a 4.3 percent 
increase was a cut, a six-something billion dollar increase of the $7 
billion that the majority hopes to increase was a cut, that I decided 
I'd come to the floor for a minute, and I've been amazed on the floor 
at what I've heard.
  I've heard the gentleman just ask a series of questions about the 
Abandoned Infants Assistance Program that's the same funding as last 
year's level; the community-based child abuse program, prevention 
program, that's the same funding as last year's level; adoption 
opportunities that I believe I heard were below last year's level.
  And I'm not asking the gentleman specifically this question, but I'm 
asking myself this question: why is that? Why is that that Abandoned 
Infants Assistance could be funded at last year's level and somehow 
that's appropriate? Is it less important than it was last year? Is it 
less important than the many unauthorized things that this bill funds 
for the first time ever? Why is it that we're not doing more, as the 
past Congress always tried to do more, in IDEA? Why is it that NIH, in 
the debate we heard yesterday, the National Institutes of Health, 
didn't deserve the funding that the ranking member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee found a funding source for for that to be raised? 
Why is it, if inflation is a factor, that we don't care at least at an 
inflationary level about Abandoned Infant Assistance or we don't care 
at least at an inflationary level about community-based child abuse 
prevention?
  The gentleman from California is saying let's just cut this by one-
quarter of 1 percent, one-quarter of 1 percent, a growth of still 
almost $7 billion, but instead, we're funding the unauthorized Full 
Service Schools Act. Now, why are we funding the unauthorized Full 
Service Schools Act, but we can't find enough money to keep adoption 
opportunities at at least last year's level? I'm amazed by what I've 
heard here on the floor.
  Why is it we're funding the unauthorized sexual education program? 
Why is it that grants to local education that could be funded at $25 
billion, because that's what the Congress in the past says we could 
allow, are only funded at $14.4 billion?
  Part of the problem here is, once again, we're authorizing on an 
appropriations bill. We're trying to come up with new programs instead 
of fulfill the promise of the last programs. IDEA took major growth in 
funding in the last 10 years, but we haven't sustained that level in 
this bill because we're trying to fund new things.
  And I just close by saying that every American knows that $7 billion 
is an increase and 4.9 percent is an increase, as was 4.3, as is 4.4.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California, a member of the committee, Mr. Schiff.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to address 
some of the arguments.
  I wanted to say about my friends on the other side of the aisle 
because, in fact, my friends on the other side of the aisle in 
committee, the Republican Members, uniformly supported this bill and 
support this bill. So I have to say that I address these remarks to a 
minority of the minority, the self-applied fringe that we've been 
describing or talking to today.
  The beginning of their argument was, well, we want across-the-board 
cuts, we don't really want to have to identify exactly what we're 
cutting. That's a little hard to sell back home, so we're going to do 
across-the-board cuts. That's a little more palatable.
  We said, well, let's look at where we're cutting, and then the 
argument was, okay, they're not cuts. They're reductions in the 
increase.
  So then we point out, well, actually you're giving the impression 
that everything's being increased. Everything is not being increased. 
Many things are being kept flat. So aren't we really cutting those 
things that are flat in the budget? And my friends in the minority of 
the minority said, yes, I guess that's right. I guess we are really 
making real cuts with these across-the-board proposals, but let's not 
really look at what we're cutting. That's not very attractive.
  And my friend says, okay, so if we're making real cuts, is it really 
the end of the world if we're making real cuts? Well, I guess it 
depends on who you ask.
  One of the things we're making a real cut to is the bone marrow 
program. Is that the end of the world for us here in Congress to make a 
real cut, in real dollar terms, to the bone marrow program? Well, it 
may not be to any of us at this moment, but for some child out there, 
it just may be the end of the world. For some parent of that child, 
some parent has to watch their child suffer with cancer, the inability 
to get a bone marrow transplant and the failure of research into bone 
marrow transplants, it just might be the end of the world for that 
parent as well as that child.
  What are the things that my friend would make real cuts to? He would 
make real cuts to scholarships for disadvantaged students. He would 
make real cuts for nurse education. Does my friend think we have more 
nurses than we need? He would make real cuts for emergency medical 
services for children. Again, is that the end of the world? Well, for 
one child it just might be.

[[Page 19817]]

  He would make real cuts for organ transplantation, real cuts for the 
National Cord Blood Inventory. Is that the end of the world? Well, for 
some child, maybe not our children, it just might be.
  We would make real cuts, under the gentleman's amendment, to 
children's mental health. Is that the end of the world? Well, for a 
child who ends up taking their own life, it just might be the end of 
the world.
  It sounds a lot more palatable when we say, well, it's a 1 percent 
cut or it's a half a percent cut. Is that the end of the world? Well, 
for one child it just may be.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how 
much time each side, I suppose, has remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes. The 
gentleman from New York has 6 minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, you know, this is so interesting 
listening to this fiscal debate and talking about we are the fringe. 
Well, let me tell you, FRINGE is a great acronym, and let me tell you 
what FRINGE is a great acronym for.
  And I think it is very appropriate for those of us on our side of the 
aisle because fringe means this: Fiscal responsibility includes no 
government excess. Fiscal responsibility includes no government excess. 
Now, Madam Chairman, that is what the people tell us they want. Get 
this fiscal house in order.

                              {time}  1530

  That is what they want. They don't want you to spend more. They want 
you to spend less. Government does not have a revenue problem. 
Government has a spending problem. All of this about across-the-board 
cuts don't work.
  If I may tell you why across-the-board cuts do work, the reason is 
this. You have the opportunity within a department to decide where you 
would like to reduce. I would recommend, as with many of our States, 
you go in and you make those reductions out of the bureaucracy.
  You don't have to take one single penny out of any program. You can 
take it out of the bureaucracy. That is where you go, and that is why 
across-the-board cuts work. That is why they use them in State after 
State after State because they have balanced budget amendments, because 
they cannot spend more than the rate of growth of the economy in that 
State.
  They work. And, yes, fiscal responsibility includes no government 
excess. Now, yes, there is some real long fringe down there because, it 
is way down by great big, overblown, heavy bureaucratic programs that 
do not respond to the needs of the American people.
  I think it is time that we say let's get this under control. It is 
the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress. If we are not happy, they will 
leave you in tatters, not fringe.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chair, I don't know if every single Republican on 
the Appropriations Committee who supported this bill would appreciate 
being called big spenders or fiscally irresponsible. I am very pleased 
that the mainstream of Republicans and Democrats worked together on 
this.
  I don't know where all the talk was about fiscal responsibility when 
we were appropriating $13 billion in tax cuts for big oil companies and 
spending money on fraudulent payments and no-bid contracts to 
Halliburton.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee), a member of the committee.
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for your 
diligence in this debate.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to briefly make a couple of points with 
regard to this whole notion of government excess. When you look at, for 
example, the military budget, we all support a strong national 
security, a strong military.
  However, a military budget of close to $500 billion, when you look at 
the waste, fraud and abuse that is in this budget, and also when you 
look at a measly $60 billion that should be cut in Cold War era weapons 
systems, I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we shouldn't get 
the kind of scrutiny and the laser focus on this government excess over 
at the Pentagon. It makes a lot of sense to me if you really want to 
put your deeds and your words into some kind of real action as it 
relates to our Federal budget.
  Also, let me just say something about these across-the-board cuts and 
who they impact. When you look at our future, when you look at our 
young people, when you look at individuals who deserve a second chance 
such as ex-offenders who had done their time who now want to pick up 
with their lives, who need education, job training, vocational 
training, when you look at our health care system that is in shambles, 
when you look at our young people and the drop-out rates and the type 
of after-school programs and drop-out prevention programs that we are 
talking about, these across-the-board cuts in many ways would decimate 
these programs. That means that certain segments of our society who 
need this safety net and need these initiatives would just drop through 
the safety net, whatever is left of that safety net. For the most part, 
it has been decimated over the last few years.
  Also, many of these people do pay Federal taxes and they deserve some 
of their Federal taxes back. I hear you all talk about tax cuts, and 
the American people deserving their tax dollars back to spend more, 
right? Fine. Many of these programs that you are talking about cutting 
are programs that are designed to help those who do pay tax, and who do 
deserve some of their Federal taxes back and who do deserve to live and 
seek the American dream, just like anybody else who makes $100,000 more 
or more.
  I would hope that some type of rational thinking would prevail out of 
this debate today and rethink some of these notions of cutting 
initiatives and cutting the safety net out of those that really need it 
the most, those that the American dream is still a nightmare for and 
those that, if we listened and did all that you want us to do, we would 
have more homeless on the streets. We would have more people just 
hanging on in the twilight of their lives. I think that we need to know 
that this budget that the chairman has crafted today really will help 
enhance the quality of life for millions of Americans.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chair, just one comment for my 
colleague from California, let me just say that I completely agree with 
you that the Pentagon is not immune from waste, fraud and abuse, nor is 
the Defense budget, nor is any part of the Federal Government. I agree 
with you on that point.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, after all of this debate, I still cannot believe that 
people don't understand what the word ``cut'' means. I took the 
opportunity to go look it up in my dictionary. I would urge my Democrat 
colleagues to do the same.
  They might find a reduction in amount. Only in Washington would 
somebody call an increase of 4.6 percent a cut. People all over America 
would love to have their salaries cut if it would only increase 4.6 
percent.
  I think I just heard the previous speaker say that people who pay 
taxes ought to get some of their money back. Well, maybe it shouldn't 
be taken from them in the first place.
  But let's go back to the term ``cut,'' because the only budgets that 
are being cut here today are the family budgets of hard-working 
Americans all across this land. It is their budgets that are being cut.
  The budgets like the Flores family in Garland, who says, ``I am a 
divorced mother with a child in college and a child in daycare.'' When 
you increase taxes, you are going to wipe out the hope of the first 
college graduate in the family. To my colleagues on the other said of 
the aisle, that is the budget

[[Page 19818]]

they are cutting. They are cutting the Flores family budget. They are 
cutting their education program.
  They are cutting the education program of the Mouton-Tedder family in 
Chandler, this largest tax increase in history, that they are imposing 
on the American people. They write in, ``If I have to pay more taxes, 
then I can't afford to go to school.'' Once again, Democrats cutting 
education budgets for families in America.
  They are cutting the health budget as well. I heard from the Winters 
family in Tennessee Colony. ``Please do what you can to stop the 
wasteful spending. I am retired and disabled. I am raising my three 
grandchildren and one great grandchild. I sometimes can't afford my own 
medicine.''
  The only budgets that are being cut here are the Democrats cutting 
the health budgets and the education budgets of the American family. It 
ought to stop.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, we have an interesting 
contrast here. We have these self-described fringe legislators that are 
here on the floor speaking up. You might call them extremists or 
radicals, whatever.
  But we also, in comparison to that, we have an incredible bipartisan 
process that has been going on this. This subcommittee met for many, 
many hours, the Labor-H Subcommittee chaired by our wonderful chairman, 
Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Walsh, met for many hours and came up 
with a bipartisan bill.
  Then that bill was presented to 66 Members of this House in a full 
appropriations hearing, and it was approved. Not a single Member of the 
66 Members voted against that bill. They all approved it, sent it on to 
the floor. You have this marvelous work product that Members have put 
many, many hours into, and they have labored over. They were all 
laboring over education, health care, worker protection. That is really 
the thrust of what we are doing here today.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. How much time do I have remaining, Madam 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I stand here as a member 
of this fringe that is happy to associate with the 83 percent of 
Americans who think this Congress is doing a poor job.
  We have got a lot of talk about cuts, but there is one thing that's 
clear. There is an increase in this bill as written. There is an 
increase of $6.6 billion in the deficit over what there would be if 
this bill held spending flat. That is an increase in raiding the Social 
Security surplus, and that will lead to the many tax increases that 
your side is currently proposing both in your budget and in other bills 
floating around in both this Chamber and the other. Those are increases 
there. This bill will not stop those increases, but just a little bit 
of a time, a quarter of a percent, it will help to slow the growth.
  I would ask for everyone's support on this bill.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, we have heard in this debate that the 
other side is not really cutting programs, they are cutting the rate of 
growth of programs. But we provided about a dozen programs that get no 
increase in this budget, that in fact will be cut from last year's. So 
the fact of the matter is that these cuts are real, and these cuts hurt 
families.
  Now, this is all about choices, and it goes back to this. Not a 
single member of this fringe group who disagrees with their own 
Republican caucus that supported this bill in the Appropriations 
Committee came to this floor to argue for a 2 percent cut, a 1 percent 
cut, a 5 percent, a .5 cut. When it came time to give $13 billion to 
the big oil companies, then there was plenty of money to go around.
  But now the argument is we can't afford to give people who want to 
send their kids to college an increase in Pell Grants. Not a single 
amendment was offered by this fringe group when it was time to provide 
Halliburton with dollar after dollar after dollar so that $1.47 billion 
was found to be fraudulent and excessive. I didn't hear a single one of 
this fringe group come to the floor and argue for cuts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  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, it is sometimes amazing to me just how 
small some congressional debates can be. We have heard a lot of 
bloviating on this floor today about whether something is a cut and 
whether it isn't a cut. We have had a boy scout debate about dictionary 
terms.
  But the real question to ask about this bill is simply to ask, is it 
adequate to the needs of the country? Do we really need to simply 
continue the status quo by going back to last year's level, or do we 
need to recognize that there is more than one deficit in the country? 
Do we really think that we can afford to continue to avoid dealing with 
the deficit in educational quality, the deficit in health care access, 
the deficit in worker training?
  Do we really think that we can avoid, or that we can afford to avoid 
investing to increase the number of quality teachers in this country? 
Do we think that we need to do more or not to help millions of kids who 
need a better deal in special education? Do we need to do more than we 
are doing now to help workers who lose their life's work because of the 
forces of globalization?
  Are we comfortable continuing to see the number of research grants 
for cancer, for heart disease, for Parkinson's disease, continue to 
decline, or do we think that we ought to make an investment, a 
collective societal investment, so that we can do more to attack those 
diseases?
  Those are values questions. That is what we have to decide here 
today. This amendment is largely symbolic. It gives people a chance on 
both sides to talk to some more, as though we haven't, God help us, 
talked enough already.
  But we are now roughly at the point where we will have to decide what 
our priorities are.

                              {time}  1545

  This bill is about 2 percent above the President's budget for these 
items. That is what we are talking about; we are talking about devoting 
2 percent more of the Federal budget than the President wants to devote 
to deal with the deficits in education, health care, job training, 
worker protection, and the like.
  Each Member is invited, in my view, to make their own choice, but I 
think the choice is clear. We have had a huge increase in the gap 
between the richest people in this country and everybody else over the 
past 20 years. This bill attempts to deal with the results of that gap 
by providing additional grace notes to help the people who haven't been 
in that top 1 percent so they get a little better deal in sending their 
kids to college, so that they get a little better deal in being able to 
find doctors who will take care of them without begging in the 
community health clinic, so they can find some job training so they 
maybe can get a job that pays two-thirds of what their job paid before 
they were bounced because of bad trade deals or globalization. That is 
what this bill attempts to do.
  It has traditionally had bipartisan support through the years in this 
country. It would be a shame if that bipartisan support didn't 
continue. I urge rejection of the amendment and support for the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 19819]]

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


                 Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Pence

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

       Amendment No. 67 offered by Mr. Pence:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose 
     under title X of the Public Health Services Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
18, 2007, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Allow me to say there are many good things happening in federally 
funded Family Planning clinics nationwide: 5 million Americans served, 
90 percent of whom are low income; 900,000 unintended pregnancies were 
averted by title X family planning funding; and it is reassuring that 
abstinence education is required for all clients. But today, I am 
offering an amendment that is very simple.
  The Pence amendment states that no funds under title X may be granted 
to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of 
title X funding, and it is the largest abortion provider in America. 
Last year alone, Planned Parenthood's own annual report states that it 
received more than one-third of its $1 billion budget from government 
contracts and grants. And, again, according to their annual report, 
Planned Parenthood performed more than one quarter of a million 
abortions.
  Millions of pro-life Americans should not be asked to fund the 
leading abortion provider in the United States. Now, let me stipulate, 
I know that title X funds may not be used for abortion. And my 
amendment does not cut or reduce the budget for family planning in this 
appropriation bill; it simply prevents appropriated funds from reaching 
an organization that profits from the abortion trade.
  It is time the American people stop funding the Nation's largest 
abortion provider, and I urge support for the Pence amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin such time 
as he may consume.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I really wish that the gentleman had not 
offered this amendment, and let me be very frank. I spent most of the 
last 6 months trying to convince Democrats, primarily liberals, who are 
now in control of the House, not to try to use their new majority to 
change any language in this bill that had anything to do with abortion 
or family planning. I have asked them, in an effort to provide 
bipartisan support for this bill, to recognize other people's values as 
well as their own. I have asked them, therefore, to leave alone the 6 
abortion-related or family planning provisions which are in the 
existing law which many on this side of the aisle oppose and some on 
the other side of the aisle oppose.
  I have asked them to leave alone the Hyde amendment; I have asked 
them to leave alone Dr. Weldon's amendment. And I had some real fights 
on this side of the aisle about that, not just with people in my 
caucus, but with a lot of outside groups. A lot of like-minded people 
on the left will get together and talk and, after they talk to each 
other, they think they have taken a public opinion poll. And I have 
asked them to lay off this bill so that we can try to find common 
ground on an issue that has divided us for so long.
  And we put together an initiative which provided well over half a 
billion dollars in special funding for programs to help discourage 
women from having abortions, and we have been able to keep that issue 
out of here. I have asked Members not to offer amendments on any of 
these items.
  But now, in return for that, we get from the other side of the aisle 
from one gentleman an amendment that in essence upsets the apple cart. 
I think that is unfortunate. I can't do a whole lot about it, but I 
think the gentleman knows that an amendment like this would not survive 
conference anyway, and yet it is being offered. And what it does, at 
the last minute, is to blow up a consensus which we have tried to build 
over the last 3 days that we all ought to be willing to live under the 
same laws that we were living under when the Republicans were 
controlling this House and when they passed the legislation that I am 
now defending. So I would simply ask the gentleman, in the interest of 
our being able to work together on these issues, to withdraw his 
amendment.
  He doesn't like Planned Parenthood. I don't care whether Planned 
Parenthood gets money or not. What I do care about is that the women 
who are served by Planned Parenthood get the services to which they are 
entitled under the Constitution. And so I would ask the gentleman, in 
the interest of the bipartisan neutrality that we have tried to build 
over the past 2 months, to consider withdrawing the amendment, and I 
thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, with acknowledgement of the gracious 
remarks of the chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Pence amendment.
  Planned Parenthood claims to work to reduce abortions, but happens to 
be the number one abortion provider in this country. This raises an 
obvious question: Why are taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize the 
largest abortion supplier in the United States?
  Planned Parenthood clinics receive funding in the name of their 
family planning services; however, there are many clinics in which 
family planning and abortion services are co-located in the same 
building, share a common set of basic resources, out one door and into 
the other.
  Abortion services generate more net revenue when clinics can rely on 
Federal dollars to pay for lighting, heating, building maintenance, and 
even rent. Planned Parenthood receives a recordbreaking $305 million in 
taxpayer funding, and they made record profits last year. And what did 
they do with those record profits last year? Planned Parenthood 
performed 265,000 abortions, the most ever in a year.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this Federal backdoor subsidy of 
Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider, and support 
the Pence amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Title X of the Public Health Services Act reaches our 
most vulnerable populations and is a primary source of reproductive 
health services for low-income women, lowering the rate of unintended 
pregnancies, reducing the need for abortion, and decreasing infant 
mortality and morbidity. It is good public policy.
  For many women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of health 
care. In some States like Wisconsin, Utah, and my own Connecticut, 
Planned Parenthood is the only title X provider. It sees 65,000 
patients a year in Connecticut and provides critical family-planning 
infrastructure in our State.
  This amendment would be devastating, especially for the thousands of 
women whose sole source of medical care is these clinics. This 
amendment plainly discriminates against the uninsured, leaving the most 
vulnerable in our society in the most helpless situation. If we truly 
do value, if we value, as we say we do, women's health, we cannot 
sabotage title X, we cannot strip Planned Parenthood of funding, and we 
cannot pass this amendment.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I want to respond substantively to the gracious comments of the 
chairman whose work on this legislation I

[[Page 19820]]

acknowledge heartily. But as to the issue of protecting all the values 
that the Republican majority advanced, I would hasten to remind that in 
the Foreign Operations bill we did great violence to the historic 
Mexico City policy. That change came. We must end the practice of 
funding Planned Parenthood.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I would remind one of the previous 
speakers that there are no title X cuts in this amendment.
  What this amendment does is to state that Planned Parenthood cannot 
receive those funds. Planned Parenthood in 2005 did perform 260,000 
abortions. That is something that we know. I think it is also important 
for us to note that it was Planned Parenthood who was the lead 
plaintiff in the legal challenge against the partial birth abortion ban 
legislation that is now the law of the land.
  This is the right move. I commend the gentleman from Indiana for 
bringing the amendment forward and for bringing to our attention the 
need to make certain that taxpayer dollars are not used in abortion 
clinics around this Nation.
  Mr. PENCE. Might I ask how much time I have remaining, Madam 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. PENCE. I yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Madam Chairman, there is one thing regardless of where you 
happen to be a Congressman. Every single one of us has something in 
common if you are from Congress, and that is that we have people in our 
districts, some who call themselves pro-life and others who call 
themselves pro-choice, and many of them are deeply convicted of their 
views on this issue.
  Now, the question before us today is, is it reasonable to force 
people who really do believe that abortion is killing children, is it 
reasonable to force them to pay money to subsidize that killing? Is 
that respectful to do that? Planned Parenthood is the biggest abortion 
provider in America. Is it reasonable to compel some of our 
constituents who believe that this is killing to take part in that?
  Mr. PENCE. It is my pleasure to yield 50 seconds to the gentleman 
from Arizona, the eloquent Mr. Franks.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, abortion on demand in America 
is the greatest single cause of death in our Nation's history. We have 
killed nearly 50 million of our own unborn children since the criminal 
Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. That is 15,000 times the number of lives 
lost in the 9/11 terrorist attack.
  Planned Parenthood is the foremost promoter and provider of abortion 
on demand for any reason or no reason. In the last fiscal year, this 
government appropriated more than $300 million to this death dealing 
organization.
  Madam Chairman, it has been said that a government is what it spends. 
For this government to appropriate one penny of the taxpayers' money to 
an organization that kills unborn children and emotionally impoverishes 
their mothers is a disgrace that undermines the core essence of the 
United States of America and betrays everything that our soldiers lying 
out in Arlington National Cemetery died to preserve.
  And Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to find the courage to vote 
for the Pence amendment.
  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, the issue here is not Planned Parenthood. 
The issue is whether women have a right to have full access to family 
planning. State health departments run 57 percent of the clinics that 
receive Title X funds. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate 14 percent 
of Title X supported clinics. Hospitals and family planning clinics and 
other non-privates make up the rest of the Title X clinic system.
  Under the law, none of these funds can be spent for abortion. But 
Planned Parenthood clinics use their Title X funding to provide family 
planning and health services to millions of women, and it is those 
women who would be hurt today by this action, not Planned Parenthood.
  I would urge a vote against the amendment. It seems to me that we 
ought to be content to live under the same arrangements that we were 
content to live under when the Republican Congresses were writing the 
law.
  It seems to me that we need to be finding ways to avoid dividing the 
Congress and dividing the country because of our ideologies.
  This amendment has nothing to do with abortion. It has everything to 
do with whether or not we are trying to find common ground on this 
cluster of issues, and whether or not women are going to be allowed to 
get the services they need in areas where the only services available 
to them come from the organization in question.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I would like to just say, I have 
voted for the ban on partial birth abortion. I consider myself a pro-
life Democrat.
  But I will say that this amendment will increase the number of 
abortions that are performed. Fifty percent of abortions are performed 
on women who live within 200 percent of poverty. If they don't have 
access to prevention, they will end up getting an abortion. And I 
believe that if we truly want to prevent abortions from happening in 
the United States of America, we have an obligation, a moral 
obligation, to fund programs like this and prevent unintended 
pregnancies. Those are the poor women who end up going to abortion 
clinics and having abortions.
  Let's prevent the number of abortions from increasing by rejecting 
this amendment. And the more money we spend on prevention, that will 
mean we will continue to reduce the number of abortions.
  And I want to thank the gentleman for working on this with us.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, this amendment is not related to abortion. 
This amendment is a frontal assault on family planning. Make no mistake 
about it. Whether you are pro-life or whether you are pro-choice or 
anything in between, you ought to be pro-family planning. And this 
amendment negates that, and I would urge defeat of the amendment.
  If I have any time left, I would yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
and associate myself with the remarks and the eloquent statement of 
Chairman Obey and my colleagues.
  And I speak from the perspective of a nurse who worked for many years 
with these women and their families in the community I'm from. Title X 
is our Nation's primary program to provide family planning services. 
According to the Guttmacher Institute, Title X has been so successful 
that for every public dollar invested in family planning, $3 are saved 
in Medicaid costs alone for pregnancy and newborn care.
  In hundreds of communities across this country, the nonprofit Planned 
Parenthood is the major implementation of precisely the reproductive 
health care necessary to carry out effective family planning and to 
reduce unintended pregnancies. And they are contributing, these 
nonprofit organizations, to the successful implementation of Title X 
services.
  So I urge my colleagues to stand for family values and to vote 
against this amendment so that you can protect your constituents' 
access to proven, effective family planning services which have as 
their goal to reduce unintended pregnancies.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  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 thank the Chair for yielding, and at this 
time I would yield 2 minutes to my good

[[Page 19821]]

friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pence 
amendment as strongly as I can advocate. The Title X program provides 
comprehensive family planning services, as well as a wide range of 
other preventative health care services, including breast exams and 
instruction on breast self-examination, pap tests for early detection 
of cervical cancer or pre-cancerous conditions, testing for high blood 
pressure, screening and appropriate treatment for sexually transmitted 
infections, HIV screening, counseling or adoption, foster care and 
pregnancy termination referrals to specialized health care. Pursuant to 
Federal statute, no Title X funds may be spent on abortions.
  The question was raised, is it reasonable to ask us, members of 
Congress, to fund abortions when we find abortions so abhorrent? But 
that's not the question before us.
  The question before us is, is it reasonable to deprive women of 
reproductive information and services to prevent unwanted pregnancies, 
and therefore, even avoid the question of whether or not to have an 
abortion? And the answer is no.
  This is about family planning. Planned Parenthood is the Nation's 
leading reproductive health care provider. For over 9 years Planned 
Parenthood has provided low-income, uninsured and underinsured women 
with vital reproductive health care services they need.
  I'll conclude by pointing out Planned Parenthood operates health care 
centers in every State in the Nation, serving over 5 million, men, 
women and teens and their communities each year. The services Planned 
Parenthood provides are needed, and to deprive them of this funding, I 
think, would be a colossal mistake.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, at this time I would yield 
such time as he may consume to the author of the amendment, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank my colleague from New York for his extraordinary 
courtesy. And let me say, I regret that this debate will only take 15 
minutes. It is a great and serious matter, and I think the dignity with 
which it's been conducted thus far is evidence of the capacity of this 
Congress to discuss even the most contentious issues of our time in a 
manner that reflects civility and favorably on the institution.
  Now, that being said, let me clear up a few points. This is not, as 
the chairman said, ``a frontal assault on family planning.'' There are 
no cuts in Title X in the Pence amendment. The Pence amendment states 
plainly that no funds under Title X may be granted to Planned 
Parenthood.
  Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of Title X funding, and 
it's also the largest abortion provider in America.
  And as to whether we are living under the same arrangements, as the 
chairman said, and I respectfully quote, ``same arrangements under 
Republican rule,'' it seems to me just a short time ago we saw this new 
majority overturn much of the decades long Mexico City policy that 
prevented Federal dollars from going to organizations overseas that 
provide abortion for family planning.
  I think this Nation needs a domestic Mexico City policy. And frankly, 
if the common ground that this Congress has reached means tens of 
millions of Federal tax dollars going to the largest abortion provider 
in America, that is not a common ground I can accept.
  Say ``no'' to Federal funds for Planned Parenthood in Title X. Say 
``yes'' to family planning funding through Title X. Say ``yes'' to the 
Pence amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I oppose this amendment, which 
is nothing less than an attack on the nation's most trusted source of 
reproductive health services and information. The Pence amendment would 
single out Planned Parenthood for exclusion from the Title X program, 
at odds with the principles repeatedly articulated by the United States 
Supreme Court.
  Planned Parenthood is the nation's leading reproductive health care 
provider. The vast majority of services that Planned Parenthood 
provides are services to prevent unintended pregnancies, and test and 
treat for sexually transmitted infections, as well as breast and 
cervical cancer screening.
  The vast majority of Planned Parenthood patients have incomes at or 
below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, women who are four 
times more likely to face an unintended pregnancy. For many women, and 
especially those in rural areas and underserved communities, Planned 
Parenthood is their only source of health care. Title X helps 575 
Planned Parenthood clinics to provide over 3 million women with family 
planning services each year.
  Madam Chairman, if we are to reduce the number of abortions in this 
country, as Mr. Pence clearly desires, we must get serious about 
prevention. Each year publicly funded contraceptive services help women 
prevent 1.3 million unintended pregnancies, which would otherwise 
result in 533,800 births, 632,300 abortions and 165,000 miscarriages. 
In the absence of publicly funded family planning, the number of 
abortions each year in the United States would be 40 percent higher 
than it currently is. In fact, from 1980 to 2000, Tide X clinics helped 
women prevent nearly 20 million unintended pregnancies, nine million of 
which would have ended in abortion. By restricting Title X, Mr. Pence's 
amendment would likely increase the number of abortions, particularly 
among our teenagers.
  We should oppose Mr. Pence's amendment because it is an inhumane 
attack on the quality of life of low-income women in this country, but 
moreover, we should oppose it because it does not make good public 
health sense. Gutting funding for family planning will never bring us 
towards a day with fewer abortions, it will only increase the 
devastating costs imposed on society by unintended pregnancies among 
young women and teenaged girls.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, the activities of Planned Parenthood are 
a concern for many of us. In Alabama, there was an unsuccessful 
abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic, and the baby was born with 
severe injuries including a hole in her heart. Planned Parenthood has 
always been a glaring exception to the long-standing policy in the 
House of not allowing taxpayer money to be used to provide abortions. 
It claims that Title Ten money is not being used for abortions. The 
reality is that any Federal dollar that goes to a clinic where 
abortions are being performed, ends up facilitating an abortion.
  The Pence Amendment is a simple way to clear up whether Federal tax 
dollars are being used properly. Title Ten money should not go to any 
organization that provides abortions. This is an issue of being 
accountable to taxpayers and consistent with the Hyde Amendment that we 
have passed on a bipartisan basis for 31 consecutive years. Therefore, 
I urge support for the Pence Amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Pence to the Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 
2008.
  Mr. Pence's amendment would deny Federal funding under Title X of the 
Public Health Services Act to Planned Parenthood health facilities 
throughout the country. As a supporter of Planned Parenthood and the 
services that it offers to my constituents in my central New Jersey 
district, I firmly oppose this purely political amendment.
  This should not be an anti-choice or pro-choice debate about one of 
the many services that Planned Parenthood provides. In fact, according 
to Federal statute, no money from Title X can be used for abortion 
services. Title X makes grants to public and private nonprofit 
organizations to provide family planning and basic reproductive health 
care information and services to low-income women. Therefore this 
debate should be about prevention. It should be about continuing to 
provide women with the necessary tools for proper prevention, including 
contraception and education. It should be about protecting women's 
health by providing women with access to reproductive health care.
  Planned Parenthood's 841 affiliates provide reproductive health care 
services to 5 million men and women annually including 84,500 in the 
state of New Jersey. 63 percent of these patients receive reproductive 
health care services and 37 percent receive family planning services. 
Through family planning services Planned Parenthood estimates that its 
services prevent over 631,000 unwanted pregnancies annually.
  Cutting Title X funding to Planned Parenthood is nothing short of 
irresponsible. The low income women who are served through Title X are 
four times more likely to face an unintended pregnancy. As a safety net 
provider, Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in serving these 
women. Title X has proven to be effective and prevents 1 million 
unwanted

[[Page 19822]]

pregnancies each year. Planned Parenthood, as the Nation's oldest and 
largest family planning provider, is responsible for preventing 60 
percent of unwanted pregnancies and we should not act to prevent women 
from getting the reproductive health care they need. I urge my 
colleagues not to support the Pence amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The only purpose this amendment serves is to decrease access to 
family planning services and to mischaracterize the critical, life-
saving work of Planned Parenthood affiliates.
  Let me be clear. Under current law, Title X funds can not be used to 
pay for abortions. Nothing in the underlying bill changes that. 
Therefore, I am left to assume that the services the sponsor of this 
amendment wishes to cut include family planning, cancer screening, 
prenatal care and deliveries, fertility information and support groups, 
and support and advocacy for victims of sexual assault.
  I am proud to defend the hundreds of Planned Parenthood affiliates, 
including the Hudson Peconic affiliate in my Congressional District. 
The dedicated work this affiliate and others like it engage in are the 
reason that more than five million men and women have access to any 
health care at all.
  Their commitment is something that should be recognized and 
commended, not demonized. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Pence amendment, which would deny Federal funding to one of the most 
important family planning and women's health organizations in the 
country. Current law prohibits using Title X funds to provide abortion 
services. Planned Parenthood has not violated this law. In fact, 
Planned Parenthood uses completely separate funds to provide these 
services.
  Ninety-seven percent of the services that Planned Parenthood provides 
are related to pregnancy prevention and women's health. The majority of 
their work focuses on low-income women, a population at greater risk 
for unintended pregnancies. Oftentimes a local Planned Parenthood 
clinic is the only place where women have access to basic health care, 
including birth control. In addition to family planning assistance, 
Planned Parenthood also provides cancer screening for breast and 
cervical cancers, as well as testing and treatment for sexually 
transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS. These are essential 
health services for women, and it would be irresponsible to discontinue 
Federal funding for them. I urge my colleagues to support healthcare 
and family planning for women by voting no on this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield back.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PENCE. 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 Indiana will be 
postponed.


              Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

       Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     employ workers described in section 274A(h)(3) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
18, 2007, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman from Iowa yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. We've been asking Members through the day if they would 
drop their remarks if we accept their amendments so that Members can 
catch their planes. Would the gentleman be willing to do that?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I'm very amenable to that process of 
doing business about every time I come to the floor. I would be happy 
to thank you for that.
  Mr. OBEY. In that case we'll accept the amendment on this side of the 
aisle. In accepting this amendment, I would make the following two 
points:
  One, I believe it is merely a re-statement of current law which 
already prohibits the employment of unauthorized aliens. I do not read 
it as imposing any new burdens on those who use funds appropriated 
under this Act. Rather it is fully consistent with the current legal 
obligations imposed on all employers, regardless of whether or not they 
use such funds.
  Two, I am concerned that the amendment may place an undue enforcement 
burden on the agencies that receive funding under this bill. I plan to 
discuss that aspect with the administration.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. And I would drop my remarks, except to say that 
this closes the issue with government working and hiring illegals. 
That's a State issue.
  I yield back.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

       Amendment No. 37 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Public Broadcasting Service to sponsor events 
     at the Filmmaker Lodge at the Sundance Film Festival.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
18, 2007, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. OBEY. Again, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. OBEY. Same deal.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I'll close the same deal with the chairman, and I 
will not describe this. The Record will show what this amendment does. 
And I'd be happy to urge adoption.
  I yield back.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. My understanding is that there are no further amendments or 
colloquies left on either side of the aisle. Is that his understanding, 
also?
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, that's my understanding, also. 
There are no further amendments, no further colloquies.
  Mr. OBEY. Then, what I would simply like to say, Madam Chairman, is 
that this bill is the product of 5 months work on both sides of the 
aisle by some very dedicated people. Mr. Walsh is the new ranking 
member on the subcommittee, but he has performed like an old timer. I 
am proud of the fact that the subcommittee worked hard on hearings. 
And, I'm proud of the fact that we've largely come together on 
substance.
  I would hope that that would be recognized by the endorsement of many 
Members on both sides of the aisle when the roll call vote is opened. 
This bill is not a matter of accounting.

                              {time}  1615

  This bill is not a matter of political theory or political party 
platforms.
  This bill, more than any other, meets the needs of all of those in 
society who are not among the most well-connected and the most 
privileged. But even for the most well-connected and privileged, this 
bill provides a lot because all of us benefit every time a child is 
educated. All of us benefit every time an American citizen gets the 
health care he or she needs. All of us benefit every time a worker is 
educated so

[[Page 19823]]

that our workforce becomes more competitive. All of us benefit when a 
single teacher achieves new skills. There is nothing in the world more 
damaging than a dull or a bad teacher, and there is nothing more 
wonderful than a well-trained, intelligent one.
  So I would urge Members to recognize that the issue isn't whether 
some program is defined as a cut or an increase. The issue isn't 
whether we like the President of the United States or not. The issue is 
whether or not we are building the kind of country we want to have over 
the next 10 years. To do that, it takes investments. And, yes, 
investments cost money. And, yes, I plead fully guilty to wanting to 
provide even more than we can in this bill. But it is essential if we 
want to remain competitive. It is essential if we want to have equal 
access to opportunity in this country. It is essential that we invest 
in bills like this.
  And I thank the gentleman from New York for his assistance in trying 
to do just that, as well as every other member of the committee and 
subcommittee.
  There is a reason why there were no votes expressed in opposition to 
this bill in full committee, and that is because this is the people's 
bill. It is the product of input from each and every Member from the 
most conservative to the most liberal, and I think there is not a 
member of the subcommittee who would not verify that.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  For my part, it was a great experience going through this 5 months 
with you. It was a lot of work. I think I speak for the staff as well 
when I say we are all pretty tired from all the work that we have done. 
And, of course, they had to put together a continuing resolution and a 
supplemental to boot. So I know I join the chairman in thanking the 
staff for the remarkable work that they have done, both sides of the 
aisle. These are professional people who obviously care about the 
issues, but they are not as concerned about the partisan aspects of 
this as we are.
  When the chairman talked about our experience here together, we 
combined about 57 years of experience here in the Congress. Most of 
that side falls on his watch and not mine, but I am getting up there 
too. And it is great to be able to work with someone who has the 
command of these issues that he does. And I remember asking him, and I 
have said this a couple of times, Why on God's green Earth would you 
want to be chairman of the full committee and the subcommittee also? 
And he said, Because the subcommittee issues are the issues I came here 
for 38 years ago. And he is making a mark on them today.
  There has been some partisan back-and-forth here, which is as it 
should be. The Founding Fathers wanted us to have a clash of ideas.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired.
  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. They wanted us to have the contest of ideas 
here. The fight should be over words and ideas and not with swords and 
other weaponry.
  But mostly what we have done is we have found what we disagree on and 
talked about it. But overall, overwhelmingly, both sides of the aisle, 
Republicans and Democrats, agree that the issues in this bill are 
priorities for the Nation. Maybe we think we should spend 5 percent 
less or they think they should spend 5 percent more, and I don't want 
to discount the differences. There are big differences between the two 
parties. And I am very proud that our party on our watch did balance 
the Federal budget, did produce surpluses before a crisis of 
international proportions affected us in 2001.
  But suffice to say, I have great respect for the gentleman from 
Wisconsin. Over the years he has made me as mad as anyone else because 
sometimes his arguments are just too good to argue with.
  So let me just end by thanking him for honoring our requests. I think 
we worked out a pretty good bill here, and I would urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  An amendment by Mr. Davis of Kentucky.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mr. Souder of Indiana.
  An amendment by Mr. Camp of Michigan.
  An amendment by Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 62 by Mr. Campbell of California.
  Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 23 by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Campbell of California.
  Amendment No. 67 by Mr. Pence of Indiana.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Kentucky

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Davis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Kentucky:
       Page 125, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 522. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay a bonus or other performance-based cash award 
     to any employee of the Social Security Administration or the 
     Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services who holds a position 
     to which such employee was appointed by the President, by and 
     with the advice and consent of the Senate, or a Senior 
     Executive Service position (as defined by section 3132 of 
     title 5, United States Code).


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 238, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 672]

                               AYES--185

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Loebsack
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul

[[Page 19824]]


     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Marshall
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1649

  Messrs. BRADY of Texas, INGLIS of South Carolina, LAMPSON and PRICE 
of Georgia changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GARY G. MILLER of California, SHAYS and LOEBSACK changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. KLEIN. Madam Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 672 on H.R. 3043, 
I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when I should have voted 
``no.''
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 672, I was on official 
business outside the national Capitol region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The next 14 votes in this series are 2-minute votes. 
The Chair requests the cooperation of Members in processing these votes 
in an expedited manner.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gingrey

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Gingrey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social 
     Security Administration to pay the compensation of employees 
     of the Social Security Administration to administer Social 
     Security benefit payments, under any agreement between the 
     United States and Mexico establishing totalization 
     arrangements between the social security system established 
     by title II of the Social Security Act and the social 
     security system of Mexico, which would not otherwise be 
     payable but for such agreement.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 254, 
noes 168, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 673]

                               AYES--254

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--168

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer

[[Page 19825]]


     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Castor
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Marshall
     Paul
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1655

  Mr. MEEK of Florida changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WU, Mr. MICHAUD and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 673 on H.R. 
3043, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted 
``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 673, I was on official 
business outside the national Capitol region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Souder:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the National Labor Relations Board to recognize as 
     the exclusive bargaining representative of employees any 
     labor organization that has not been certified as such by the 
     National Labor Relations Board pursuant to section 9(c) of 
     the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159).


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 255, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 674]

                               AYES--167

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

                               NOES--255

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner

[[Page 19826]]


     Harman
     Hirono
     Jindal
     Marshall
     Paul
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1659

  Mr. KIRK changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 674, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 674, I was on official 
business outside the National Capital region in my capacity as chairman 
of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 674 on H.R. 
3043, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when I should have voted 
``no.''


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Camp of Michigan

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

                                TITLE VI

                     ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement any policy prohibiting a Medicare 
     beneficiary from electing during a coverage election period 
     described in section 1851(e) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-21(e)) to receive health care benefits under 
     title XVIII of such Act through enrollment in a Medicare 
     Advantage plan under part C of such title.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 228, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 675]

                               AYES--192

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

                               NOES--228

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Berkley
     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Kaptur
     Marshall
     Olver
     Paul
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1703

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 675 I 
inadvertently voted ``no'' but intended to vote ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 675, I was on official 
business outside the national Capitol region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 19827]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 233, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 676]

                               AYES--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carney
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--233

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Marshall
     Paul
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1707

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 676, I was on official 
business outside the national Capitol region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 412, 
noes 12, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 677]

                               AYES--412

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin

[[Page 19828]]


     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--12

     Barton (TX)
     Campbell (CA)
     Deal (GA)
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hastert
     Hoekstra
     King (IA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     McCrery
     Shadegg

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Marshall
     Paul
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1712

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 677, I was on official 
business outside the National Capital region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


         Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 108, 
noes 316, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 678]

                               AYES--108

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reichert
     Rogers (MI)
     Roskam
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--316

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 19829]]



                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Marshall
     Paul
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1717

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 678, I was on official 
business outside the national Capitol region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Flake

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 96, 
noes 327, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 679]

                                AYES--96

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Walberg
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--327

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Lamborn
     Marshall
     Paul
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1720

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 679, I was on official 
business outside the national Capitol region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


             Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 136, 
noes 288, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 680]

                               AYES--136

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)

[[Page 19830]]


     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--288

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Marshall
     Paul
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1725

  Messrs. RUSH, HOLDEN and BUCHANAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 680, I was on official 
business outside the national capital region in my capacity as chairman 
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


            amendment no. 4 offered by mr. price of georgia

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


                             recorded vote

  the CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 256, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 681]

                               AYES--165

     Akin
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--256

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)

[[Page 19831]]


     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Marshall
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Space
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1728

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 681, I was on official 
business outside the national capital region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
Musgrave) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 245, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 682]

                               AYES--177

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--245

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Marshall
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1732

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 682, I was on official 
business outside the national capital region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


         Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

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

[[Page 19832]]

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 245, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 683]

                               AYES--177

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--245

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Marshall
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1736

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 683, I was on official 
business outside the national capital region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Pence

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 231, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 684]

                               AYES--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

[[Page 19833]]


     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bono
     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Gohmert
     Harman
     Jindal
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Marshall
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Shuster
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1739

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 684, I was on official 
business outside the National Capital region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 3043, the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations bill. Let me first commend my dignified 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Representative David Obey, for 
his tenacity and strong leadership in steering this important piece of 
legislation. Among many things, this bill will provide the support and 
additional resources in areas where our Nation is currently facing 
scarcity--health care, social security, medical research, skilled 
workers and job training, community services, as well as the quality, 
accessibility and affordability of higher education and education for 
the disabled.
  Madam Chairman, I must certainly agree with the rationale behind this 
bill--``we cannot continue to disinvest in our Nation's future.'' Over 
the past several years, the previous Republican-led Congress 
significantly cut investments for the Labor-HHS-Education bill, and our 
43rd United States President has once again proposed drastic cuts--$7.6 
billion below FY 2007. As a Representative of the people of the United 
States, I am committed to reversing this trend of disinvestment. Our 
Nation's future is dependent on quality health care, job opportunities 
for our citizens, decent education, improvement of life-saving 
technologies, and national security. With $151.7 billion of projected 
discretionary spending in FY 2008, this bill will provide a modest 
increase of $4.3 billion (or 3 percent) over 2007, after adjusting for 
inflation and population. Although this bill will not completely 
rectify the problem, it is indeed a step towards a positive direction.
  This bill promises to make college more affordable because its 
provisions include an increase in the maximum Pell Grant of $390, which 
is in addition to th $260 enacted in February 2007 by this Democratic-
led Congress. This measure will benefit the more than 5.5 million low-
and middle-income students across America's higher education system. In 
addition, this bill provides an increase of 4.8 percent for the TRIO 
programs, educational opportunity outreach programs designed to 
motivate and support students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
  Madam Chairman, this bill is of significant importance to my 
constituents. For the past twelve years, I have served as a 
Representative of the 18th Congressional District of Texas. In the 
heart of my district are several community colleges and three major 
universities--the University of Houston, the University of Houston--
Downtown, as well as one of our nations leading Historically Black 
College/University, Texas Southern University. In the heart of my 
district are also three ABA-approved law schools--the University of 
Houston Law Center, Thurgood Marshall School of Law, and South Texas 
College of Law. With the rising cost of college education, many of 
these students in my district are reliant on Federal financial aid to 
complete their education. Because investment in education system today 
yields high returns for the individual, as well as society, I support 
this measure to make college more affordable and accessible.
  Madam Chairman, quality health care is close to non-existent in this 
great nation that we call America. As a nation of abundant natural 
resources and high productivity, it is humiliating to know that 46.6 
million citizens are without health insurance. If current policy plans 
are to continue, by 2013, the number of uninsured Americans will 
increase by 11 million. This is simply an unacceptable national problem 
and must be rectified. H.R. 3043 will expand access to health care for 
the uninsured by providing access for more than 2 million uninsured 
Americans. Funds will be directed to community health centers, which 
will enable them to serve an additional 1 million uninsured Americans. 
The bill also includes a $50 million initiative to assist states in 
providing high-risk insurance pools, thereby supporting affordable 
insurance for almost 200,000 medically high-risk people. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to support this bill, which invests in initiatives 
that will provide new access to health care for more than 2 million 
uninsured Americans.
  H.R. 3043 invests in life-saving medical research by reversing the 
previous Republican disinvestment plans and providing an increase for 
National Institute of Health of $750 million. As once stated by Senator 
Joe Lieberman, ``by expanding our knowledge of human diseases, we can 
help reduce health care costs by discovering more effective treatments 
and learning how to prevent onset of serious illnesses. Biomedical 
research is a fundamental component of a preventive care approach to 
health care reform.'' Medical research at NIH offers optimism to 
millions of American families--with groundbreaking research into 
diseases such as cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and 
many more. This bill provides an increase of $750 million, which in 
essence allows for NIH to support another 545 new and competing 
research grants. Expanding and funding life-saving medical research 
programs must become a top priority if the United States hopes to 
combat the inefficiencies and inequities in our health care system.
  Madam Chairman, it is time that we take a new course of action in 
investing in our Nation's future. I strongly believe that H.R. 3043 is 
this new course. Forty-one low priority programs were cut or 
eliminated, saving $1.1 billion below 2007. Through passage of this 
bill, our Nation will benefit from the increase in quality, 
accessibility and affordability of higher education with the $3.3 
billion directed to student financial aid. The academic performance of 
our American children will be improved through the $1 billion 
allocation for No Child Left Behind Programs. Our citizens, especially 
the uninsured, will have the opportunity to receive quality health 
care, through the $1.3 billion being directed to the Health Resources

[[Page 19834]]

and Services Administration. This bill also allows for an investment in 
the skills and training of America's workers and the workforce through 
additional funding to programs similar to Job Corps, as well as 
community services initiatives, such as the Community Services Block 
Grant. Our disabled citizens will be cared for through federal 
contributions for special education for children with disabilities 
through the funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA).
  Madam Chairman, I am a strong believer that our children are our 
future. Family is the backbone to the success of any child, as well as 
the success of our Nation. For this reason, all members of society must 
be granted access to quality health care, education, and job skills 
training. It is students like my current Congressional Black Caucus 
Foundation Intern, Daria Awusah, that gives me strong faith that our 
future is in good hands. As my constituent, as well as a student at the 
University of Houston (which is in my district), she has worked 
tirelessly and endlessly to finance the past three years of her college 
education. It is her testimony that although not enough, financial aid 
has been an instrumental element in financing her education. Let us 
continue to support students like Ms. Awusah.
  I ask my colleagues to join me and support H.R. 3043. Once again, I 
thank you, Congressman Obey, for your leadership in this endeavor. Our 
country's future is dependent on the role that we take as Members of 
Congress through the policies that we choose to implement. Let us begin 
with the reinvestment in our country's future by passing H.R. 3043.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chairman, the Act of August 25th, 1916, more 
commonly referred to as the National Park Service Organic Act, states 
that, ``there is hereby created in the Department of the Interior a 
service to be called the National Park Service, which shall be under 
the charge of a director, who shall be appointed by the President.''
  Since 1916, the National Park Service created by the Organic Act has 
grown to include 22,000 people, conserving and interpreting 391 units 
in a National Park System that will welcome more than 270 million 
visitors this year. Our National Parks are a source of enormous pride 
for millions of Americans and examples for the world regarding the 
conservation of places and resources which make a Nation and a people 
unique. And of course, Madam Chairman, much of the credit for the 
tremendous success of the National Park idea is due to the 
professionalism, commitment and expertise of the men and women working 
for the NPS.
  As the centennial of the Organic Act approaches, there is consensus--
among policy-makers and the American people--that this 100th 
anniversary must be viewed as an opportunity to recommit ourselves to 
building a stronger, more diverse, better trained and better equipped 
National Park Service. In February, the Bush Administration proposed 
legislation to increase funding for the NPS over the next decade in 
recognition of this milestone. Two of my colleagues on the Natural 
Resources Committee--full committee Ranking Member Don Young and 
subcommittee Ranking Member Rob Bishop--have introduced that 
legislation, by request, as H.R. 2959.
  Today, with the support of Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick 
Rahall, I am honored to introduce H.R. 3094, legislation we believe 
will best commemorate this 100th anniversary while also preparing the 
National Parks and the National Park Service for another 100 years. 
H.R. 3094 authorizes mandatory spending expected to total $100 million 
a year for ten years. The bill creates a process whereby the Executive 
Branch will coordinate annual proposals for how best to spend this new 
funding and the Congress, through the Interior Appropriations bill, 
will allocate the funds.
  In contrast to the Administration's proposal, H.R. 3094 identifies 
six specific program areas within which this increased funding is to be 
spent. These areas include education in the parks, diversity programs, 
an environmental leadership initiative, professional development, 
resource protection an construction. This mix of funding priorities--
investing in natural resources, bricks and mortar and human capital--
will insure our parks and park employees can meet the challenge of the 
next 100 years successfully.
  Also in contrast to the legislation proposed by the Administration, 
H.R. 3094 provides this new spending without requiring private matching 
funds. While we recognize the critical role private giving has played 
in creating and sustaining the National Park System, we remain 
concerned regarding the ever-increasing reliance on private funds. H.R. 
3094 encourages private giving but makes absolutely certain that NPS 
spending priorities are determined by the Congress and the 
Administration without regard to which projects might, or might not, be 
most attractive to private donors.
  And finally, Madam Chairman, H.R. 3094 differs from the 
Administration's proposal in that all of the spending in our bill is 
paid for--meaning this bill addresses the stringent PAYGO requirements 
instituted by the Democratic majority. The Administration's failure to 
identify a source for the mandatory expenditures in H.R. 2959 makes 
that proposal simply unrealistic.
  Madam Chairman, the American people treasure their national parks and 
care deeply about their future. The funding levels we provide for the 
National Park Service, at this critical milestone in its history, 
should reflect that. The initiatives funded through this legislation--
especially those which will use our national parks as classrooms for 
young people--will create new generations of stewards to safeguard our 
national parks for the next 100 years.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I have always said that the working men 
and women of Michigan are my top priority. I believe that every working 
family deserves access to a quality education, strong healthcare, jobs 
that are safe for its workers and secure retirement plans. Today the 
House will consider the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
Appropriations bill, H.R. 3043, which will fund programs families need 
and rely on. I rise in support of this legislation because I believe it 
will provide our families with healthy and secure environment in which 
to raise their children.
  By 2014, nearly half of nation's growing occupations will require 
higher education. If we want to help families succeed and help children 
prepare for work in the global marketplace, then we must help them earn 
a college degree. H.R. 3043 will provide the Department of Education 
with $61.7 billion, which is $4.2 billion or 7.4 percent above 2007 
funding. In addition, this legislation will provide $2 billion, a 14.6 
percent increase above 2007, in funding for Pell Grants to raise the 
maximum Pell grant by $390 to $4,700, benefiting over 5.5 million 
students.
  This legislation will also help prepare our students for college by 
providing $2 billion for No Child Left Behind, an 8.4 percent increase 
above 2007. Specifically, $1.9 billion will go towards Title I grants, 
which benefit nearly 55,000 disadvantaged students in preschool, 
elementary and secondary levels. This funding will also provide reading 
and math instruction for 161,000 low-income students. The Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grants will receive 
$174.5 million, ending the previous Congress's habit of declining 
Federal contributions for special education.
  We also must focus on preparing workers, many of whom who have been 
displaced due to layoffs or company closings, for second career 
opportunities. H.R. 3043 will increase funding for the Department of 
Labor, including a $227.4 million increase for employment, training and 
worker protection programs. This funding will greatly help our great 
state of Michigan because $1.2 billion will be used to provide state 
grants that training and supportive services, such as rapid-response 
assistance to help workers affected by mass layoffs and plant closures.
  H.R. 3043 will also provide for the health and well-being of our 
families. Currently over 44 million Americans do not have health 
insurance; by 2013, the number of uninsured Americans will grow by 11 
million. Universal health care has always been one of my top 
priorities, and I believe this legislation reflects a strong commitment 
to improving health care in our country.
  Democrats took the first step towards helping the uninsured by 
passing a $207 million increase in funding for community health centers 
in the FY2007 Continuing Resolution, benefiting an additional 1.2 
million people. The legislation before us today will provide an 
additional $200 million for community health centers. This bill also 
includes $50 million to assist states in providing affordable insurance 
for almost 200,000 people who are considered medically high risk and 
are not able to obtain health insurance in the commercial market. 
Lastly, H.R. 3043 will provide $45 million for health insurance 
counseling to assist 45 million Medicare beneficiaries to understand 
and fully utilize the benefits to which they are entitled.
  This legislation will go farther than just providing health care to 
the uninsured; it will also provide much needed funding to the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention and emergency responders who served 
during 9/11. While the administration proposed reducing funding for the 
Federal government's public health activities by $159 million, this 
bill will provide a $255 million increase for a total of $6.5 billion. 
This funding will be dedicated to programs that focus on childhood 
immunization, state and local public health emergency

[[Page 19835]]

 preparedness, and efforts to combat chronic diseases such as diabetes 
and heart disease and emerging infectious diseases. In the aftermath of 
9/11, many first responders were exposed to dust and other harmful 
debris at the World Trade Center site. H.R. 3043 provides $50 million 
to improve the health monitoring and treatment of the World Trade 
Center emergency responders. It will also require that the 
Administration develop a comprehensive plan for how they will address 
the current health needs of these first responders.
  The Labor-HHS Appropriations bill will also help families keep warm. 
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) has helped over 
500,000 families in Michigan heat their homes during Michigan's tough 
winters. This year it will see a critical increase of $500 million, 
23.2 percent above 2008, to provide energy assistance to nearly 1 
million more low-income seniors and families. The Community Services 
Block Grant, which provides funding to States to expand services such 
as housing, home weatherization, parenting education, adult literacy 
classes, and emergency food assistance will see a $30 million increase 
to $660 million. In order to help improve processing time for Social 
Security disability claims and hearings, the Social Security 
Administration (SSA) will receive $9.7 billion, $401 million above 
2007. Over the years, disability claims and hearings have increased, 
creating a backlog in casework. This funding will help to reduce the 
backlog and allow the SSA to continue providing monthly cash benefits 
to nearly 55 million Americans each year.
  Our Founding Fathers trusted Congress with the task of funding the 
Federal government through the annual appropriations process. While 
this process is never easy, it is one of the most important duties we 
have to the American people. Not only has President Bush threatened to 
veto this legislation, but he also proposed cutting funding for these 
programs $7.6 billion below last year. This bill invests in families 
and their health, the workforce and their job training, and students 
and their education. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation 
and show the American people Congress is dedicated to improving their 
quality of life.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Chairman, Congress created the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation program in the FY 2001 Defense 
Authorization Act. This program compensates workers who were exposed to 
nuclear radiation while on the job within the Department of Energy and 
who later developed cancer and other illnesses.
  While the program was a step toward righting the wrongs that these 
hard-working Americans had to suffer, there have been many problems 
since the enactment of this program. Many DOE workers have had 
difficulty proving that their cancer was directly caused by the 
radiation they were exposed to in the line of duty. The years-long 
process that the program requires workers to go through to prove they 
deserve compensation is intrusive and drawn-out.
  This is an issue that directly affects my constituents. The Nevada 
Test site is an area larger than the State of Rhode Island, located 
about 65 miles north of Las Vegas. After years of exposure to nuclear 
radiation, many DOE workers who were employed at the Nevada Test Site 
during Cold War nuclear testing are now battling several forms of 
cancer, and many have already passed away. Unfortunately, many of these 
workers have also been turned away from Federal compensation.
  However, there is an alternative for workers to qualify for Federal 
compensation. Workers at other Energy Department facilities across the 
country have been designated as part of the Special Exposure Cohort 
(SEC). Workers at these locations qualify for EEOIC benefits without 
going through an arduous and bureaucratic process. Since the creation 
of the program, Nevada Test Site workers have petitioned to be included 
in the SEC, but have only succeeded in part. Currently, only NTS 
workers who worked at the site between 1951 and 1962 are part of the 
Cohort and therefore automatically qualify for benefits. This only 
accounts for one third of all NTS claimants, leaving a large group of 
former Federal employees who are awaiting the compensation they 
deserve.
  Madam Chairman, I understand this appropriations bill is not the time 
to designate Special Exposure Cohorts. However, it is imperative that 
we as a Congress act on this issue before it's too late: before the 
victims of nuclear radiation are gone. Before their families are left 
behind without their loved ones. This is long overdue and we must act 
now.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Chairman, in recent years, the GOP-
led Congress significantly cut investments for priorities in the Labor-
HHS-Education bill. This year, the President has once again proposed 
significant cuts to programs of $7.6 billion below 2007 levels. This is 
the wrong message and the wrong policy for America.
  My colleagues and I are determined to reverse the funding cuts put 
forth over the past several years. This bill rejects most of the 
President's damaging cuts and provides an increase of $4.3 billion (or 
3 percent) over the 2007 funding levels. The bill makes college more 
affordable--including increasing the maximum Pell Grant by $390. The 
bill helps raise the achievement levels of America's students, 
providing $2 billion increase above 2007 and $1 billion above the 
President's request for No Child Left Behind programs.
  H.R. 3043 expands access to health care for the uninsured by 
investing in initiatives that will provide for new and innovative ways 
to reduce costs while expanding coverage. This legislation provides 
$200 million for community health centers, enabling these centers to 
serve an additional 1 million uninsured Americans. The bill provides 
$75 million for a new initiative of state health access grants, 
providing start-up grants to states that are ready with plans to expand 
health care coverage to targeted groups. It also includes $50 million 
for an initiative to assist states in providing insurance pools to 
support affordable insurance for almost 200,000 people who are 
medically high-risk.
  H.R. 3043 meets the domestic healthcare and education needs of our 
Nation. For too long, Congress has ignored the needs of the American 
people. Today, I will move with my colleagues in a new direction to 
fully fund the vital healthcare and education programs utilized by the 
American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3043, the 
Federal Year 2008 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations Bill. By passing this legislation today the 
House of Representatives is taking a significant step forward toward 
investing in our Nation's long-term future. This $152 billion 
investment marks a $10 billion increase over President Bush's 2008 
request and a $7 billion increase over the Federal Year 2007 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations Bill. The increases in the appropriation's legislation 
before us today, will translate into more help for those in need of 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, more affordable higher education, 
and health care for the uninsured.
  Home heating costs have skyrocketed over the last few years. Many 
people are finding themselves unable to keep up. We in Congress believe 
that no American should be forced to choose between whether to eat or 
heat your home. This is why we are increasing Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance to $501 million in 2008, an increase that will ensure 1.3 
million families are not left out in the cold this winter.
  We have also used this appropriation to demonstrate the Democratic 
Party's commitment to reining in the sharp rise in college costs that 
continue to be a barrier to so many students. By increasing the Pell 
Grant from $4,050 to $4,700, an increase which will benefit more than 
5.5 million low- and middle-income students, we have taken another 
major step in the 110th Congress toward making higher education more 
accessible.
  Finally, it is a disgrace that there are 46.6 million Americans 
without health insurance; in this year's Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Appropriations Bill we have taken major steps 
to expand access to health care for the uninsured. For example, the 
bill provides a $200 million increase in funds allocated to community 
health center initiatives--enabling these centers to serve an 
additional 1 million uninsured Americans. Furthermore, the bill 
provides $75 million for a new initiative to state health access 
grants--providing start-up grants to states that are ready with plans 
to expand health care coverage to targeted groups. Finally, H.R. 304 
also includes $50 million for an initiative to assist states in 
providing high-risk insurance pools to support affordable insurance for 
almost 200,000 people who are medically high-risk.
  This is finally a Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations bill with the right priorities, one that puts working 
Americans first.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairwomen, I rise in support of the Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill (H.R. 
3043). This legislation makes important investments in education, 
health care and vital scientific research.
  ``Last November, voters around the country called for a change in 
direction and this bill epitomizes the differences in priorities 
between the old Republican-led Congress and the new Congress. In the 
past five years, even as the cost of attending college skyrocketed, the 
previous Congress raised the maximum Pell Grant by only $300. We said 
we could do

[[Page 19836]]

better, and today we are increasing the Pell Grant by $390, more in one 
year than the Republican-led Congress did in five years. President Bush 
submitted a budget this year to freeze funding for child care and cut 
funding to Head Start by $100 million. We said we could do better, and 
today we are increasing both Child Care Block Grants and Head Start by 
$75 million each.
  ``Since the inception of No Child Left Behind, it has been 
underfunded by more than $55 billion, and this year the President's 
budget proposal fell $14.7 billion short of full funding. We said we 
could do better, and today we are reversing that trend and increasing 
the appropriation for No Child Left Behind by $2 billion, including a 
$1.5 billion increase for Title I. As we work to reauthorize that bill 
this year, I hope that we will continue this positive trend and commit 
to mandatory funding of primary and secondary education.
  ``I am also pleased that today, for the first time since fiscal year 
2005, we are increasing funding for the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. In 1975, Congress passed IDEA to ensure that all 
students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate public 
education. At that time, Congress made a pledge to states--the federal 
government would pay 40% of the costs to educate special needs 
students. We have never met that commitment, and in the past several 
years, the Congress has actually failed to increase funding for IDEA at 
all. This year, the President proposed a cut in these funds. Today, we 
are increasing IDEA funding by $509 million. While this is an excellent 
start, we must continue to work towards keeping our promise to states 
and fully funding IDEA. With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to join 
me to pass the EDUCATE Act, which creates a mandatory, fiscally 
responsible path to fully fund IDEA by 2015. Students and states have 
waited more than 30 years for Congress to fulfill its pledge, and we 
have a responsibility to do so.
  ``I am also pleased that in this bill today, we are increasing 
funding for many important education programs, including school 
counseling, afterschool programs, Even Start, Teacher training, 
education technology, and advanced placement. By strengthening these 
priorities, and putting the focus back on education at all levels, we 
are opening doors to students and increasing our ability as a nation to 
harness the energy, intelligence and ambition of our young people and 
keep our country in the forefront of discovery and innovation.
  ``The bill also addresses the fact that, in recent years, the 
nation's health scientists have faced shrinking laboratory budgets and 
dwindling research grants. Important investments need to be made today 
to reverse those trends. The House focuses an additional $1 billion to 
fund the National Institutes of Health to accelerate research 
discoveries that can treat and cure many diseases.
  ``In spite of the all of the positives that this bill will 
accomplish, I am concerned about what some might consider superficially 
attractive but ultimately counterproductive cuts to administrative 
accounts at the Department of Education and elsewhere. Federal 
employees work hard to deliver valuable services to our nation everyday 
and simply can't do their jobs without the minimum amount of resources 
necessary. This legislation includes roughly $175 million in funding 
cuts to federal employee salaries and resources. I'll be working in 
conference to ensure that our dedicated civil servants have the 
resources they need to continue providing their valuable services.
  Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased to support this legislation which 
makes the critical investments needed to address the health, education 
and economic challenges we face.''
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I have heard concerns about the 
Cincinnati area's Planned Parenthood Clinic's alleged mishandling of 
claims of abuse. This is an ongoing legal process, and we must wait for 
the verdict before determining the truth of the claim. As a mother, I 
can only imagine how difficult this time must be for the young woman.
  Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri states in their mission 
that they are ``committed to providing confidential, affordable 
reproductive health care to all individuals, regardless of their 
ability to pay.'' Planned Parenthood provides a wide array of basic 
health care services to both women and men. They offer cancer screening 
for women and men--we know that early detection can help people fight 
and win their battle with cancer. They provide confidential screenings 
for sexually transmitted diseases so that people can get treatment and 
prevent the further spread of disease. They offer counseling for women 
going through menopause on what to expect and what types of treatment 
they could consider. They diagnose infertility problems for women and 
men trying to build a family. They also conduct workshops for parents 
and youth to discuss topics related to sexuality. The workshops build 
self-esteem, promote a positive body image and build communication 
skills. They also offer a workshop called ``choices and consequences'' 
that helps youth understand what abstinence means. In the workshop, 
youth and Planned Parenthood advisors work together to identify the 
skills and knowledge that someone needs to use abstinence effectively.
  Despite the numerous types of health care services provided, Planned 
Parenthood is best known for assistance in family planning. To be 
clear, Planned Parenthood cannot use any of its Federal funding to 
perform abortions. The family planning services they provide are 
critical for women's health. Women depend on contraceptives for better 
health to regulate their menstrual cycles and treat endometriosis. 
Access to family planning services helps prevent unintended pregnancy 
and helps in the timing of planned births. If women can control when 
they become pregnant, we can significantly reduce the number of 
abortions--a goal I believe we should all support.
  Planned Parenthood's services are confidential, and perhaps more 
importantly, affordable. They provide basic health care to many of my 
constituents who might not otherwise be able to afford it. In 2005, 
Planned Parenthood served 13,601 Kansans. I will continue to support 
funding for health care for my constituents.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the FY08 Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education Appropriations 
Act. This legislation includes valuable funding for the health care 
needs of the heroes and heroines of 9/11. I commend Chairman Obey for 
his effort to include $50 million for their treatment.
  H.R. 3043 will make college more affordable by increasing the maximum 
Pell Grant by $390 while providing $2 billion more than last year for 
No Child Left Behind programs. It expands access to health care for the 
uninsured and provides and increases funding for the National 
Institutes of Health by $750 million over last year.
  However, I do oppose a policy provision contained in H.R. 3043 which 
concerns the National Institutes of Health public access policy. The 
act would change the current voluntary policy by mandating that final 
manuscripts reporting on NIH-funded research be submitted to the NIH 
National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central for worldwide 
distribution. This change would set a dangerous precedent for 
government action, by infringing on the rights of the copyright holders 
of these articles. I believe strongly that the policy is best left in 
its current voluntary form to provide flexibility and allow copyright 
holders to manage their investments in scientific research while 
maintaining the accuracy of this data.
  Publishers in my district invest hundreds of millions of dollars to 
ensure that the results of scientific research are peer reviewed, 
published and disseminated as widely as possible. Although public 
dollars are used to fund the research, the peer review and publishing 
process is completely funded by private sector non-profit and 
commercial publishers. A unilateral requirement that these articles be 
posted for free on PubMed Central, ignores the critical role that 
publishers play in the scientific process. This requirement also 
ignores a longstanding principle that the government should not be 
involved in the taking of copyrighted works--and in this case, without 
providing any compensation. That is exactly what a mandated policy 
would do.
  Moreover, once manuscripts are deposited in PubMed Central, these 
copyrighted works would be available for anyone to download the 
material, free of charge and without any geographic or time 
restrictions. Under the current policy publishers still retain control 
and voluntarily make their articles available for free public access 
while retaining their copyright. Under a mandatory policy authors and 
publishers would be required, as a matter of practical effect, to give 
up any reasonable prospect of protecting their copyrights.
  Madam Chairman, I believe that the NIH can achieve the laudable goals 
it has set by implementing the public access policy without infringing 
on publishers' copyrights. However, this can only be done if the policy 
is left in its current form and not mandated. I urge my colleagues who 
will be conferencing on the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill to take these 
issues into consideration when they finalize the legislation so that 
the copyright protections that are so critical to the continued 
advancement of science and scientific knowledge will be fully 
preserved.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I am dismayed that this 
Congress, including Members of my own party, has again decided to 
eliminate funding for the Denali Commission and cripple the economic 
lifeline to hundreds of small communities throughout rural Alaska.

[[Page 19837]]

  When health crises arise, options are often extremely limited in 
rural Alaska. Health issues or emergencies that require hospital care 
often involve costly air transportation that can take as much time and 
money as a flight from New York to Los Angeles, if weather permits. For 
local health care, the typical rural community health facility is 
aging, small and inadequate to provide necessary services. In one of 
its earliest decisions, the Denali Commission designated rural health 
care as a top priority for Commission support and is continuing its 
work to provide safe and appropriate infrastructure which will improve 
health care delivery for rural Alaskans.
  Through its health care program, and in partnership with the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services and Alaska health providers, 
the Commission is working to address the infrastructure needs of 
communities statewide to ensure all Alaskans receive safe and reliable 
health care.
  In 1999, the Commission was granted authority by Congress to address 
rural Alaska health care issues. This authority authorized the Denali 
Commission to plan, construct and equip health, nutrition and child 
care projects across the state. Potential projects include hospitals, 
health care clinics, and mental health facilities including drug and 
alcohol treatment centers. In 2001, the Commission identified rural 
primary care facility needs in more than 288 rural communities, and 
estimated the cost of needed rural primary care facilities to be $253 
million.
  Since then, more than 200 communities have sought assistance from the 
Denali Commission. And in addition to constructing several essential 
village primary care clinics, the Denali Commission has funded major 
design initiatives for needed replacement hospitals in Nome and Barrow. 
It has now completed clinics in over 65 of these remote communities.
  Now, in 2007, Congress is telling the Commission that they no longer 
see a need for the Denali Commission. They are looking to cut $39 
million when the real need in my State is several times that amount. 
Have the health care problems in rural Alaska been miraculously fixed 
overnight? Have any Members of the House visited Alaska and seen 
firsthand that rural health care is no longer an issue for Alaskans? 
The answer to both is a resounding ``No.''
  The Commission works tirelessly each year to make sure that my 
Alaskans are not treated like second class citizens and eliminating 
these funds will be devastating. It is my hope that the Senate has more 
sense and will continue funding this essential program. I will work 
with my colleagues in the other chamber to make sure that this 
happens--Alaskans deserve better.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, I would like to express my support 
for the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations Bill. This bill takes an important step in providing 
affordable education and quality health care. The strength and the 
future security of our country depend on our investment in health, 
education, and insuring that the needs of our workforce are addressed. 
H.R. 3043, as drafted, includes increased funding for many programs 
important to our state and local education, health, and labor agencies.
  The bill addresses increases in funding at all education levels from 
early childhood to higher education. Although most of these increases 
are still below FY 2005 levels, it is the beginning of reversing the 
decline in Federal funding which has not been compatible with increased 
costs related to NCLB (which imposed new and stronger mandates on our 
State and local education agencies). H.R. 3043 provides for $1.6 
billion over last year's level to fund NCLB programs, especially for 
Title I programs to help poor children. The bill also provides for 
increased funding for Head Start centers, as well as special education 
grants that benefit 6.9 million children with disabilities.
  I would like to extend my support to the Gwen Moore-Tom Cole-Bobby 
Scott-Carol Shea-Porter amendment that will put a stop to the harmful 
Upward Bound (UB) evaluation that is being conducted by the Department 
of Education. The Upward Bound program has been threatened both 
financially and administratively and I am hopeful that my colleagues 
will not support provisions that threaten to eliminate this long-
standing program. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment that would eliminate the Absolute Priority program, which is 
an evaluation tool used by the Administration to justify the 
elimination of the UB program.
  As the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, I 
would be remiss if I did not mention the positive direction that this 
bill takes the health and well being of Americans, and the important 
steps it takes to bolster our health care infrastructure.
  This bill increases funding for critically important programs, such 
as HCOP and other provider training programs, as well as for critically 
important Federal agencies and offices, such as the National Center for 
Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institutes of 
Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and SAMHSA.
  Unlike the President's budget, this bill represents the positive 
direction we need and should take to ensure that our health care 
system--at every level, from research, to training, to actual care--has 
the capacity and resources to adequately treat the millions of 
Americans who access it. I am enthusiastic about provisions in H.R. 
3043 that provide funding in my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, for 
follow-up glaucoma screening and perinatal care. These programs are an 
important part of bridging the gap for the elderly, low income and 
uninsured individuals.
  Despite its numerous amendments and three days of debate, the bill as 
written provides funding for programs that help to improve our Nation's 
education, health care and labor programs. I urge my colleagues to 
support its final passage.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chair, I rise for two reasons.
  First, this has been a long and very difficult bill on the floor. I 
think the House should recognize the fabulous work of both Mr. Obey of 
Wisconsin and my colleague from New York (Mr. Walsh). They endured all 
this. Congratulations for a good job.
  Further, I believe we ought to extend our appreciation to the 
Chairwoman who has done a wonderful job and a fair job in the process, 
Mrs. Tauscher of California.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2008''.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, 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, she reported the 
bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation 
that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do 
pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 547, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


         Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. In its present form I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     3043 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House promptly with an amendment 
     providing that funds made available to any child welfare 
     agency, private or public elementary school, private or 
     public secondary school, local educational agency, or State 
     educational agency under titles II or III of the bill may be 
     used to pay for any fees charged under the Schools Safely 
     Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of 2006 for conducting 
     background checks authorized by law.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.

[[Page 19838]]


  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk's reading essentially 
explained what my motion to recommit is all about. Essentially for the 
House's better understanding, we provide simply discretionary 
flexibility to school districts to use funding in these titles to make 
certain that they know well the backgrounds of those people who will be 
working with and around children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Nevada (Mr. Porter) because 
he spent a good deal of time in this arena, and his district is 
adjacent to mine in the beautiful downtown Nevada. We understand some 
of the same difficulties we are facing.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. PORTER. I would like to ask this body to take 2 minutes and 
listen to something very compelling. This bill does not matter on its 
face if our children are not safe. This body, with an amendment that I 
passed last year, has helped protect 27 million more children across 
this country by providing for school districts that could not in the 
past do criminal background checks. In this session alone, we passed 
additional legislation to help kids that are in Head Start by giving 
them additional protection for 1 million children who did not have that 
before.
  An example of what is happening in this epidemic nationwide is we 
have teachers, we have professionals, we have individuals that are 
predators, sexual predators following our children. We need to make 
sure we add one additional tool, and that eliminates barrier to help 
fund these programs that we passed last session and this session. Head 
Start alone, one particular program had 660 teachers; of that, they 
were not inspected for 5 years. They discovered, out of 660 teachers, 
100 teachers and support staff had criminal backgrounds. Of that, 50 
had serious offenses from first-degree murder to child predator to 
domestic violence.
  What I am asking this body to do is to use common sense, allow for 
these school districts to eliminate one more barrier to help them pay 
for these backgrounds checks. It is common sense. It is a way to 
provide protection. It is something that we can do to ensure and add 
one additional guarantee for our families and our children that they 
will be safe within our schools.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, Jon Porter said it all. I urge 
your positive vote on this motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if this issue were in fact the real problem, 
it can easily be dealt with in conference by Mr. Walsh and myself and 
the rest of the committee, but in fact it is not a problem. The fact is 
that under the bill money in the Safe and Drug Free Schools account can 
already be used for exactly the same purpose.
  I would also like to point out, however, that this is a program which 
was cut by the President to $100 million, and the House has restored 
$146 million above the President's figure to take care of problems just 
such as this.
  But the membership should also understand that this recommit kills 
the bill. It is dressed up in language on fees, but in fact it calls 
for the bill to be referred to the committee and reported back 
promptly, not forthwith. And, as Members know, that is a device that 
kills the bill.
  We have endured over the last 3 days filibusters by amendment. We 
have had 25 hours of amendments, sometimes repetitious amendments. We 
have spent twice as much time on this bill as was spent the last time 
that the bill was considered by the Congress.
  And I would make one other point. The sponsors of this proposal could 
have used it to do anything they wanted to do with the bill. They could 
have cut the bill, they could have changed the priorities. They didn't. 
And the fact that they didn't, in my view, is an admission that, in 
terms of policy, this is a good bill. It is a backhanded admission that 
this bill ought to pass as is.
  So I would ask Members to vote ``no'' on the motion and vote ``yes'' 
on passage. They can then go home having done good things for America's 
children, for Americans who need help to get health care, and for 
American workers.
  Let me also take just a second to thank the House for its indulgence 
over the last 3 days. I know that it has often been tiresome, but I 
appreciate the fact that they understood that the committee was just 
trying to do its job.
  I yield to the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This motion will be defeated because it kills the bill. If the 
gentleman from Nevada were serious about this motion, he would have 
asked that it be forthwith. That would have passed his amendment. This 
is not a serious amendment, I tell my friend. This is, unfortunately, 
however, why the American public is so upset with the Congress of the 
United States: because what they see, they say that Congress is not 
getting its work done, and they are right. And they are right because 
obstructionism is occurring on this floor and on the floor across the 
hall. And if it were in the name of serious legislating, perhaps they 
would understand. But this is not serious legislating, A, because the 
money can be spent for that now; and, B, because it kills a bill that 
is for the education and the health care of our people.
  Reject this specious motion. Pass this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Members of both parties 
who have helped through the process. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
motion and a bipartisan ``yes'' vote on final passage.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that if indeed this 
motion passed, this bill could be reported back to the respective 
committee through which it was designated, and that the bill could be 
reported back to the House the very next legislative day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unlike the case of a motion to recommit with 
instructions to report back forthwith, the adoption of which occasions 
an immediate report on the floor, the adoption of a motion to recommit 
with instructions to report back promptly sends the bill to committee, 
whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately before the 
House. This is illuminated in Deschler's Precedents, volume 7, chapter 
23, section 32.25.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Is it not true that this bill could be reported 
back the next legislative day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A recommitted bill may be reported from 
committee again.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Is it untoward for me or someone to ask for 
unanimous consent that this vote be a 2-minute vote rather than a more 
extended vote?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain that request 
under the current circumstances.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 206, 
nays 213, not voting 12, as follows:

[[Page 19839]]



                             [Roll No. 685]

                               YEAS--206

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

                               NAYS--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Marshall
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1809

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 685, I was on official 
business outside the national capital region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 276, 
nays 140, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 686]

                               YEAS--276

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

                               NAYS--140

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)

[[Page 19840]]


     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bono
     Brown, Corrine
     Calvert
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Filner
     Harman
     Jindal
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Marshall
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1817

  Mr. HOBSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 686, I was on official 
business outside the national Capitol region in my capacity as Chairman 
of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________