Green Energy Education Act of 2009

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Tiahrt and every member of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle for the work that they've put in in bringing this bill to the floor today. It's a controversial bill. I know we've had a lot of disagreements, but I think that the disagreement has not been disagreeable, and I appreciate that very much.

I want to thank Beverly Pheto, Rebecca Motley, Cheryl Smith, Susan Quantius, Nicole Kunko, Stephen Steigleder, Mike Gentilly, Amy Battaglia, Albert Lee, Christina Hamilton, and Ellis Brachman; and on the minority side, Steve Crane, Stephanie Meyers and AmyClaire Brusch for all of the staff work that has been put into this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this country has pushed a lot of money, government money, taxpayers' money, into the financial sector of the economy and Wall Street the last few months in order to try to stabilize the economy. This is the bill that tries to deal with the problems of everybody else in this society.

I urge its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.025

Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado and yield to Mr. Polis.

I yield to Mr. Perlmutter.

I thank both gentlemen for your efforts on this issue. The committee will work with the gentlemen, the Department of Labor, and OMB, to ensure that this program continues to help deserving beneficiaries, and that the Ombudsman's Office continues to have the resources it needs to properly fulfill its oversight duties.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, before I get into the specifics of the bill, I would like to take a couple of minutes to respond to some of the criticisms that have been made about the process by which this bill has come to the floor.

Much has been made of the fact that this bill did not come to the floor under an open rule. There is nothing really new about that. On at least 25 occasions during the Republican control of this House, appropriation bills came to the floor without being under an open rule. But I want to specifically address the so-called ``outrage'' that has occurred by our supposedly denying Republican amendments the right to get a vote.

Here are the facts: Republican Members of the House offered 14 amendments. They filed 14 amendments with the Rules Committee. Four of those amendments were not in order under the rules. A point of order could have been lodged against all of them, so they were out. Three more were on subjects that belong in the health care debate or the health care reform debate, which is now working its way through the Congress.

I think what happened is that some Members on the other side of the aisle mistook me for Henry Waxman and thought we were in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Now, I don't think I look like him. I don't think Henry would want to look like me. But somehow there is confusion.

So our Republican friends have brought a number of amendments, three of them, to this bill on subjects such as forbidding us from having a public option in the health care reform bill. That's not under the jurisdiction of this committee. All that would do is add to the confusion. So those amendments were rejected by the Rules Committee.

Then our Republican friends offered another amendment which dealt with the issue of indirect student loans, whether that program should expire or not. That is an issue which was decided by the Education and Labor Committee earlier this week. It is an authorization. It's not an appropriation issue. So it's decided on that bill.

So that takes us from the Republicans' 14 initial amendments down to five amendments. We made in order four of those five amendments. The one amendment that we did not make in order that was remaining was an amendment that would have added a billion dollars to a program that we already added $12 billion to earlier this year in the recovery package. We put $12 billion in increases into special education. In the 12 years that the Republicans controlled this place, in total they only added $8.5 billion to that program. So we poured money into that program. And given the competition on the part of all other programs for taxpayers' money, I think the Rules Committee justifiably felt that that amendment was a little outlandish, so we didn't vote on it.

Now, if people want to make a Federal case out of that history, be my guest.

The second thing we've heard today is considerable bashing--in addition to bashing of the majority party of the House, we've heard considerable bashing of President Obama. In terms of the bashing of the majority, we were told a bit earlier by one of the speakers over there that we had been partisan in the full committee and had rejected every Republican amendment. That's nonsense. We accepted 57 Republican amendments on all of the appropriation bills that went through the committee this year. I hardly think that that is being partisan.

I would also point out that the bailout, which has been so roundly denounced by several speakers today, that bailout was originally proposed and asked for by President Bush. It was voted down the first time in this House. It was voted up the second time after credit markets further collapsed. And both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, in an act of patriotism, rose above their partisan and electoral interests and supported Bush on that issue even though it was unpopular.

Enough said on that score.

I would also say that for those who are screaming about the President's economic recovery efforts, the President has been in office a very few short months. The Recovery Act passed less than 5 months ago. It is designed to be a 30-month program to try to limit to some degree the job loss in this economy. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month in the last 3 months of the Bush administration. We've now seen that job loss decline to about 400,000 jobs a month. That's not good enough in anybody's eyes, but it is a whole lot better than was happening last year. And it's going to take, frankly, a long time to repair the damage done by 8 years of previous government policy.

So I would prefer to set those issues aside. I don't think it's particularly productive to engage in partisan bashing.

I should correct one statement that I made. I said that we accepted 57 amendments in committee. We accepted 57 amendments in committee and on the floor. Let me correct that statement.

Having gotten rid of all of that underbrush, I would like to now turn to what is in this bill and why I believe the House ought to support it.

As I said earlier, this government, both under President Bush and under President Obama, has pumped a lot of money into what I would call the elite sectors of the economy: the financial sectors of the economy, the banking system, et cetera, and Wall Street. And now this bill is the main appropriation bill that deals with the economic problems and the health problems of every other American, and I want to walk

you through just a bit what this bill does.

First of all, I think we need to understand this bill is fiscally responsible. The committee's allocation cut a total of $10 billion from the President's discretionary spending request, and in this bill, we have a $52 million reduction from President Obama's request. We have eliminated or cut some 44 programs, saving $1.3 billion.

And I would point out that the largest single problematic increase in the bill is a $993 million increase for the Social Security Administration to dramatically cut back the backlog on disability claims facing that agency. And I think no one would argue those funds are wasteful.

After we account for that increase for Social Security, that leaves us with a 1.7 percent increase for the rest of the bill. After you deduct for inflation, it means this bill, in real terms, is three- tenths of 1 percent above last year. That is hardly profligate.

In addition, a priority for this bill is $1.1 billion which we include for activities to reduce improper payments, fraud, and abuse in the Department of Labor and Health and Human Services and in the Social Security Administration. That is a 50 percent increase in enforcement money to go after fraud and waste and abuse over the previous year. It's been estimated by the budget office that that action could result in over $48 billion in savings and increased revenue for picking up legitimate revenues that would have otherwise been lost.

With respect to the Department of Health and Human Services, this bill increases that agency by about 3.3 percent. Again, hardly a profligate increase.

Now, we're all talking about our desire to pass health care reform. We recognize in the committee that if we're going to do that, we have to increase the capacity in the health care system, and so we are appropriating nearly $3 billion to do just that. We're providing $2.2 billion for community health centers; $530 billion to expand training programs in the nursing field; $135 million for a career pathway innovation fund to again train nurses, medical technicians, and others in the health care industry; $75 million additional funding for State health access grants to help States transition to a health reform program; and $65 billion for State high-risk insurance pools. We've also increased the National Institutes of Health funding by $500 million.

I've said many times on this House floor, when I go home, I've never had anybody in my life come up to me and say, ``Hey, Obey, why don't you in Washington get your act together and cut cancer research?'' and yet that is what the previous President and the previous Congress did. They eliminated over 900 medical research grants at the National Institutes of Health. We don't to that. We add a significant amount of money to try to beef up our medical research across the board.

We also added some $200 million for an initiative begun by former Treasury Secretary O'Neill in Pennsylvania to try to get hospitals to bring under control their life-threatening hospital infection problem which is plaguing the entire country.

With respect to senior nutrition and other services, we provided $1.5 billion. We have rejected the administration's efforts to cut $1.5 billion out of basic grants for Title 1. We've restored that funding.

We have provided a large increase, $446 million, for the administration's top priority, which is the Teacher Incentive Fund, and $500 million for Pell Grants.

The Department of Labor, more than half of the increase in that department is simply to help States to process unemployment compensation claims. We also have a $271 million program in this bill to strengthen our ability to help veterans transition to civilian workforce employment.

And I think, Mr. Chairman, that's about all I want to say about the numbers in the bill.

I just want to add one thing. With respect to the policy provisions in this bill, we have retained every single limitation that was contained in previous appropriation bills when our Republican friends were in the majority. We have retained every single restriction on abortion that was in bills when they controlled the House, and so I think we have leaned over backwards to try to work with our friends in the minority.

And as I say, I appreciate the relationship that I have with the gentleman from Kansas. He's a fine and good man. We don't agree on everything, but as Will Rogers once said, when two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.

So we do the best we can to reconcile our differences. We all have deeply held beliefs, but I think this bill represents the values of the country and, I hope, the values of this Congress.

I would urge support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have a manager's amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I believe, is not controversial. It incorporates several amendments requested by Members and makes technical corrections to the underlying bill. These adjustments are fully offset and do not change the bottom-line funding for the bill.

Briefly, the amendment provides an additional $5 million for the Career Pathways Innovation Fund within the Department of Labor requested by Mr. Teague, offset by a reduction in the green jobs fund

It contains an additional million dollars for the emergency medical services for children's programs. As a result, the total of $21 million is included in the bill to bring improved emergency medical care to children due to Mr. Matheson's work on this issue

It contains an additional $1 million for the National Center for Health Statistics within the Centers for Disease Control, fully offset. As a result, the bill includes $140 million for the collection of critical health statistics. Mr. Cohen sponsored this important amendment.

Mathematics and Science Partnership program is increased by $5 million to $184 million to expand professional development for math and science teachers. Again, it is fully offset. It was urged by Mr. Holt and Mr. Ehlers and others.

The amendment provides nearly $7 million for the Reach Out and Read program within the fund for improvement of education in the Department of Education. It will result in an additional $2 million for books to help children learn to read due to the efforts of Mr. McGovern.

The amendment increases the amount from $20 million to $30 million within the charter schools program in the Department of Education that may be used for grants to charter management organizations. It replicates successful charter models at the request of Mr. Polis.

The amendment provides $1 million for university-based modeling and simulation programs newly authorized by the Higher Education Act proposed by Mr. Scott.

It then includes two funding limitation amendments sponsored by Mr. Cuellar with respect to the Federal management program designation and a prohibition on the use of funds in the bill for any first class travel in the agencies funded under this bill.

And the amendment also makes technical correction.

I would be happy to yield briefly to Mr. Cohen.

I would be happy to yield to Mr. Teague.

I thank the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I ask how much time I have remaining.

Let me consume 1 minute of that time myself.

Mr. Chairman, all I would say is that I've had at least two Members of the Republican side of the aisle come up and thank me for accepting various amendments. So while they may not have been the lead sponsors on amendments, they were certainly involved on the Republican side of the aisle in supporting some of the amendments that we have accepted and incorporated.

Secondly, I think the gentleman's recitation of some of the amendments that were not considered illustrates my point earlier. The first amendment that he mentioned was an amendment that was clearly not in order under the Budget Act. It would have put this entire bill under a violation of the Budget Act for being over our allowable funding. I didn't think good conservatives would want us to do that.

Secondly, I would point out that the second, third and fourth option he was talking about all speak to what kind of health care reform we should have, and that is not the jurisdiction of this committee. Those issues right now are being worked on in the Energy and Commerce Committee; they're being worked on in the Education and Labor Committee; they're being worked on in the Ways and Means Committee. And that's where they should remain.

Having said that, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge adoption of the manager's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition.

I would ask the gentleman if he can proceed with another speaker until my speaker gets here.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the underlying language in this bill is, in fact, a compromise. It lifts the ban, but it does not permit Federal funds to be used for needle exchange programs that occur within 1,000 feet of a day care center, school, college or university, any public swimming pool, park,

playground, video arcade, or youth center or any events sponsored by any such entity.

There is overwhelming evidence that syringe exchange programs when implemented as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy are an effective public health intervention for reducing HIV/AIDS and hepatitis and do not promote drug use.

Now let me be clear. I detest illegal drug use. I think it constitutes a national security threat. It ruins lives. It causes crime. It gets us into wars against drugs in Colombia and Mexico; and in fact, it gets us into another war in Afghanistan because of poppy production. So I hate illegal drugs. But even more, I hate the spread of AIDS. There's overwhelming evidence that we can help stop the spread of AIDS by allowing needle exchange programs. They are endorsed by leading public health organizations, such as the Institute of Medicine, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association. They are endorsed by people such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Nation's leading fighter against AIDS; Thomas Frieden; former NIH Director Harold Varmus; former Surgeons General C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served under Republican and Democratic administrations. They are endorsed by people such as Captain Andrew Smith from the Los Angeles Police Department; Atlantic City Deputy Chief of Police Robert Schwartz; and San Francisco Chief of Police Frederick Lau.

Let me make one other point. Every Member of Congress has access to decent primary health care; but we are going to put at risk a substantial number of people if we do not support this underlying committee amendment. I want to say something personal. If we lose this amendment, it is not going to be because a lot of people on this House floor really believe that this ban makes sense. It will be because many Members are concerned and fear a cheap-shot political 30-second ad that distorts their position, spreads half-truths and scares people. I understand that concern.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

But for the good of the country, we are being paid to ignore that kind of pressure and simply do the right thing for the country. I ask every Member of the House to do the right thing because if you do, it will save lives. I ask them to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Let me simply say that I'm perfectly happy to accept the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time, unless the gentleman is prepared to close.

I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Just one; me.

No. I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Title X is America's family planning program. It provides comprehensive family planning services and a wide variety of other preventive care, including breast exams and instruction on breast self-examination, Pap tests, screening and appropriate treatment for sexually transmitted infections, HIV screening, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

This amendment gratuitously blocks Planned Parenthood clinics from receiving Title X funding. Those clinics provide important health care access to low-income uninsured patients, 5 million women in 4,500 clinics nationwide. The breast cancer screenings and the well-mother exams they receive may be the only health care they get all year.

If Planned Parenthood clinics are forced to close, these women may have to forgo critical care because they will lack a single provider providing Title X family planning funding, and this amendment would only make matters worse.

Now, if this amendment is intended to stop abortions, it has no impact whatsoever. Title X statutes forbid the use of funding for abortions, and this bill appropriates no funds whatsoever for abortions. Our bill includes the traditional Hyde language, prohibiting funds in the act from being used to support abortions. And it reads, in part: `` Projects under such title shall not be expended for abortions, all pregnancy counseling shall be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for any activity, including publication or distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidates for public office''. And I repeat again, no funds flow for abortions, none whatsoever.

Planned Parenthood plays a central role in expanding access to care under Title X. Planned Parenthood is the Nation's leading reproductive health care provider. For over 90 years, Planned Parenthood has provided low-income uninsured women with the vital reproductive health care services they need.

I want to make one other point. Every Member of Congress has access to decent primary care. The Pence amendment would cut millions of American women off from their source of primary care. If Members want to do that, go ahead and vote that way. Not me. Not me and not any Member of the House, I believe, who understands the true needs of American women.

I yield back the balance of my time. I urge opposition to the amendment.

I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would cut $803 million out of important investments in this bill. Let me point out a few facts. First of all, as I said earlier, the Appropriations Committee allocation has already cut a total of $10 billion from the President's discretionary spending request, and this bill cuts $52 million from that same request.

This bill, on a comparable basis, is 3.6 percent above the 2009 limit. That is hardly runaway spending. Furthermore, when you look at program lines, you will see that this bill makes hard choices to terminate programs that are not working, with $1.3 billion in cuts to individual programs below the 2009 level. The bill terminates or cuts 44 programs. The largest single program increase is for the Social Security Administration, effectively one fourth of the bill's entire increase for 2009.

With dramatically rising retirement and disability claims facing the agency, nobody would argue that those funds are wasteful. After accounting for the SSA increase, this bill is 1.7 percent above for the rest of the bill, meaning, in real dollar terms, after inflation, it is an increase of .3 percent. That is hardly being spendthrift.

If this amendment is adopted, I would point out two problems. First of all, it makes no real spending decisions. It leaves all of that in the hands of the President of the United States. It allows the President to determine this funding level for every single account in this bill. I don't think this Congress should be a rubber stamp for any President.

And, then, I think we ought to look at what the implications are for programs in this bill. Applied to the National Institutes of Health, this cut would wipe out more than 900 new research grants and eliminate inflation adjustments for 36,000 new and existing research grants undermining efforts to treat cancer, Parkinson's, diabetes and

other deadly diseases. Applied to community health centers, nearly 1.3 million people could see their health care services reduced or eliminated. Applied to special education, IDEA funding would be cut by 7 percent below the 2009 level. Applied to Pell Grants, 7.6 million students could see their grants reduced and the maximum Pell award cut by approximately $135.

Applied to LIHEAP, it would reduce the number of households served by over 900,000. Applied to senior nutrition, it would eliminate nearly 240 million meals to 2.5 million vulnerable Americans. Applied to Head Start, over 50,000 low-income children would be denied comprehensive early childhood development services. Applied to the Child Care Block Grant, child care services for over 270,000 low-income families would be eliminated. And applied to the Job Corps, it would deliver a more than 50 percent cut to Job Corps centers.

With all due respect, I don't think anybody on this side of the aisle needs to hear a lecture about deficits. I have opposed the Bush policies, both economic and war policies, which led to the unraveling of the budget, which led to a huge amount of debt and which led to the collapse of the economy. I don't think we need more of that kind of medicine.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I make a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions because it includes legislation and is not in order under clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this is what I would call the original holy picture amendment. Sometimes we see legislators who think that the way to do business is to cut everybody else's priorities in order to fund theirs. That's not the way 435 people can come to a constructive conclusion. The fact is that this is a recovery or trailer amendment left over from the stimulus bill of a few months ago.

Just a few months ago, we had a stimulus bill on the House floor which increased special education by $12 billion. In the 12 years the Republicans were in control of this House, they increased special education by a total of $8.5 billion. We increased it by $12 billion in 1 year, and not a single Member on that side of the aisle voted for it.

And now, they're belatedly trying to recover politically by cutting a laundry list of other programs in order to pretend that they found a responsible way to free up money to fund Special Education.

I want to point out that this amendment would cut $100 million from the School Improvement account. That could endanger 100,000 kids who, right now, have after-school learning programs. It cuts $148 million from the Innovation and Improvement account, Reach Out and Read, Teach for America, Full Service Community Schools, and Reading is Fundamental.

It eliminates $88 million in smaller learning communities. We've learned from research that a lot of high schools need to be downsized. This cripples the program and would prevent 500,000 high school students from benefiting from that program.

It cuts almost $170 million from the Community Service and Volunteer Program, including AmeriCorps and Summers of Service--summer jobs. It would also put at risk an effort to bolster the participation of disabled Americans in community service. It would cut the Foster Grandparents and Senior Companion program as well.

It would eliminate $300 million from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. If the H1N1 virus has taught us anything, it's that we have to attack these disease problems on a worldwide basis.

I think the amendment speaks for itself. I don't think we want to play ``fruit basket upset'' just so that somebody can get better on a rollcall. I would urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman. It's a pleasure to be here with you this morning as we continue to consider the fiscal year 2010 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill.

First, I'm frustrated by my role here today. Instead of being able to perform my duties as a ranking member as I've done in the past, my role requires that I protest the way debate is suppressed on this bill. It is necessary, but not something that I relish.

Usually the role of the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, as well as the authorizing committees, is to present the views of the minority and to work with the majority in crafting a bill that combines the best ideas of both sides of the aisle. We do this through the amendment process. As the ranking member, I have not always agreed with what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed, but I always defended their right to offer their amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank Chairman Obey for reaching out to me during the drafting of this bill. He is a passionate advocate for many of the programs funded in this bill, and he has clearly put a great deal of thought into this bill before us. I also want to credit him for trying to put together a bill that Members could support by including many national priorities; yet, due to the wholly unsustainable allocation on top of an already unsustainable allocation in the stimulus bill for these agencies, we could not agree on the final product.

I also want to thank the staff for their dedication to this important bill, on the majority side, Cheryl Smith, Susan Quantius, Nicole Kunko, Stephen Steigleder, Albert Lee, Mike Gentilly, Amy Battaglia and Devon Klein; on my side, Stephanie Myers, Steve Crane, of course AmyClaire Brusch from my personal office staff.

One of the most important duties of this House, as directed by article I, section 9 of the Constitution, is to determine the financial obligations of the Federal Government, the power of the purse, as we say. This is, indeed, what we are here to do today, with the Labor-HHS- Education Appropriations bill. Yet instead of being able to have a healthy discussion, as the Founders intended with this representative body, Members, both Republican and Democrat, I note, are shut out of the process and only permitted to speak for a short time without the ability to offer alternatives.

Several of my colleagues and I submitted amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration on the floor today. I think they are substantive amendments that deal with the public policy issues our constituents sent us here to debate. Even though they met the requirements for consideration on an appropriations act, the Democrat leadership decided to report a gag rule that severely limits our ability to offer them.

When we first started down this road to ruin with respect to the autocratic rules that govern debates on appropriations bills, we were told that these rules were required because Republicans were ``filibustering by amendment'' and because we would not commit to time limits. We knew at the time that those arguments were mere fig leaves, and over the past few weeks, the evidence has become crystal clear.

We were told that we had to finish our work quickly, so time agreements were essential. Next, we were told that we had done nothing to limit our amendments. Strangely, when we were in the majority, we didn't limit amendments to appropriations bills. Why? Because we believed then, as we do now, that Members have not only the right, but the constitutional responsibility, to represent their constituents.

Even so, while we were stating our continued concern about the restrictive rules by which we have been forced to abide for this bill, we reached out in good faith. Instead of offering upwards towards 50 amendments, House Republicans, in good faith, limited the amendments request. This year, there were fewer Republican amendments offered on this very substantial bill than were offered under an open rule just a few years ago.

Republicans offered 12--only 12--amendments. Did some of those amendments pose potentially difficult votes for Democrats? I guess so.

We had an amendment by Mr. Carter and Mr. Burton, which would have been in order under an open rule, to prohibit the Democrats from killing the largest student loan program in operation today. Is it permitted to be offered today? No.

We had an amendment by Mr. Lewis, the ranking Republican of the Appropriations Committee, again in order under the standing rules of the House if we were operating under the procedures that allowed the American people full representation. The amendment would have prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services from starting a government-run health insurance plan. The amendment was ruled by the Parliamentarians to be permissible under the standing House rules. Is Mr. Lewis going to offer his amendment today? No. Why not? The Democrats don't want to vote on socialized medicine, probably because their leadership and their constituents don't agree how they should vote.

As ranking Republican on this subcommittee, I had an amendment that would have done nothing other than codify the nonbinding language the majority included in the so-called stimulus bill with respect to using comparative effectiveness research as an excuse to ration health care. Was I permitted to offer it? No.

As I travel through the State of Kansas and talk to the people who sent me here, it is clear that most Kansans, and I think most Americans, are wondering if this Congress and this administration understand the long-term ramifications of the massive spending spree we've been on since January. The stimulus bill we passed spent nearly $800 billion, money we don't have. When you add the interest that we'll have to pay to the Chinese who buy our debt, the cost is going to exceed $1 trillion.

And what do we have to show for that exercise? Unemployment has hit 9.5 percent nationwide and is expected to rise above 10 percent. Some States are already well over 10 percent unemployment. If this is recovery, then it is a ``jobless recovery.'' Well, who does that help?

We have massive amounts of money spent on programs, many funded by the agencies in this bill that are maybe good in the long term but have absolutely nothing to do with bringing this country out of the economic crisis we're facing today. What it did do is create a mountain of spending that will hit next year and create the cliff effect.

At the time, the President and the Democrats in the majority claimed this was one-time spending that would drop off after 2011. I'd like to believe that's true, because if it isn't, this bill will cost about $220 billion, or $60 billion above where we are today, which is about a 40 percent increase.

I suppose that would be okay if we had an extra $60 billion laying around in the Treasury, although I'd prefer to give it back to those who worked so hard to earn it. But the fact is, we do not have this money. It is borrowed. It is borrowed from the American people. It is borrowed from their future earnings, and it is borrowed from foreign governments like China.

Next week we will consider the health reform bill that looks like it's going to cost well over $1 trillion, and it is full of provisions that instruct the Congressional Budget Office to overlook the spending.

We had a budget submitted to us by the White House this year that, for the first time, exceeded $3.5 billion in total spending. The White House is apparently so worried about letting the American people know how much of their money is being spent that they have delayed the traditional midyear budget review, which is expected to show a historic deficit. It's delayed until next month when Congress has left Washington and while many Americans are on vacation--well, those that can afford it this year, anyway.

I want to make clear to the American people what exactly we are voting on here today. It's $163 billion in discretionary allocation and an $11 billion increase from fiscal year 2009, but that is about a 7 percent increase. But the true cost to the American taxpayer has to include the $126 billion that was allocated for those agencies in the stimulus act. So, in reality, these agencies have grown by $135.3 billion, or a 93 percent increase over 2 years, 93 percent.

My colleagues and I were prepared, as is historically done in this body, to offer amendments to hold the spending to levels we can afford, even move from

some of the overfunded programs to the underfunded programs, such as special education, but as I have noted, we are prohibited by the Democrat leadership from doing so today.

In addition to the excessive spending in the bill, we have several other concerns. First and foremost, though the distinguished chairman has told us in committee that this bill has nothing to do with the health care reform bill the Democrat majority is crafting, the committee report for this bill that they are crafting includes language that tells a different story.

It acknowledges that this bill is setting the foundation for the implementation of health care reform, and it also acknowledges the stimulus does, as I argued then, ``the committee continues the investments begun in the Recovery Act to expand the capacity of the health care system to handle the increased demand that will come from health care reform.''

So, indeed, it is important for us to talk about health care reform proposals, how they will impact these agencies and, more importantly, how they will impact the American people. I do not think that there is a Member of this body who denies the importance of reforming our health care system. We have serious problems with regard to cost and access and rationing, even to a point where choice and quality will also be threatened.

My biggest concern with the Democrat proposals as intended is the rationing of health care. The Obama administration has begun to set the framework for rationing health care with comparative effectiveness research. Who is going to be affected most by this rationing and by using comparative effectiveness to do so. Unfortunately, it is those with the most to lose. Though they deny this program is intended to make coverage decisions based on cost, the government already does in Medicare and Medicaid and in TRICARE.

Forcing us into a public plan that rations health care is not what the American people want. What they need and want is medical decisions made by patients and their physicians, not unelected government bureaucrats. Congressional Democrats are actively campaigning for a nationalized health care proposal that includes more than $800 billion in new tax increases. It's estimated that this plan will result in 4.7 million workers losing their jobs as a result of tax hikes on business.

Under the President's government-run health care plan, businesses will face further operating costs, jobs will be cut and, worst of all, Americans will be left with fewer choices and lower-quality health care. Having seen the failed results of the administration's so-called economic stimulus plan, the last thing Americans need is to have Democrat leaders nationalizing our health care system.

Reforms to the health care system are needed and Republicans have offered to work with the Democrats in creating a bipartisan solution. But so far our efforts have been ignored by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. We have offered a plan to promote new jobs to enhance the growth in our economy that does not strangle the already faltering economy. Most importantly, any health care plan should offer Americans freedom through expanded access and increased quality.

My colleagues and I tried to offer amendments today that would have prevented the Department of Health and Human Services from using our tax dollars to implement policies that would ration care, that would have prevented a burden on small businesses and threaten jobs, that would have prevented an advisory board accountable to no one that determines health care payment policies, or that would have prevented Americans from being forced into a public plan instead of their private insurance.

These are extremely important protections that HHS is already moving towards doing, and more, with the stimulus funds as well as expected funds for next year. I assure the chairman and his leadership that our intent is not to be obstructionists, or to be dilatory. However we believe it is important to preserve the integrity of this body and have a full and open discussion on the funding levels in this bill.

Therefore, it was important for me to take time to explain at length to the American people why there is scant debate on this bill. We are not being silent. We're simply being gagged. In closing, I believe there is a better way to provide services included in this bill. I believe there are commonsense ways to provide health care to all Americans without rationing and without the cost of Americans losing their jobs. There's a way that increases access and keeps patients and doctors in control in health care. And I believe there's a way to rebuild our economy without borrowing money to do it.

But today we won't have access to these solutions. That debate, those votes were prevented by the majority. Because of that, the American people will suffer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of how much time is left?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is also a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, apparently, the gentleman from Ohio has overlooked the fact that every spending bill that has made it to the President's desk since 2007 has been originated by the Democrat- controlled House. So I would like to correct that.

May I inquire as to how much time remains in this debate?

I will yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, sometimes there is convenient memory loss about what

has happened in the economy recently. Since 2007, the House Appropriations Committee, as well as the full House, have been controlled by Democratic leadership. The bills that were voted for in the bailout last year were voted for by the current President, then- Senator Obama. So, to think that the economic woes of today were imposed upon the Democratic-controlled House by Republicans is a stretch of even the wildest imagination. To assume that the Republicans in the House controlled the Supreme Court at any time in the history of this country is a stretch of the imagination.

The bill before us today, when added with the stimulus bill, is a 93 percent increase in spending. It's a tremendous amount of money, and it's money that is not designed to bring jobs back to America but merely to continue existing programs and even to create new programs that have not gone through the hearing process, the process of developing, of changing and of molding these programs, so that they are fully productive for the American people, whether it's in health care or in education or in labor.

So I think that it's important for us to realize that this bill has a lot of money which is money we don't have, excessive money, and it should have had the opportunity, through the amendment process, to be brought back to levels that we can afford, to levels that would not have imposed an excessive amount of borrowing for the American people, because that borrowing leads to requirements for not only ourselves but for future Americans, who work hard for their money, to then pay money for programs that have already existed in the past.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would say that this process has been, I think, restricted in an unnecessary fashion, and because of that, there are many people who will not be able to support this legislation.

I want to, once again, acknowledge that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has spent a lot of time and a lot of effort, and has looked deeply into the details of this bill. I think that this bill is an encompassment of his passion for serving, and he has done a very good job on the details and on the work that he has put into this bill. I want to acknowledge that publicly and thank him for that effort. I wish that the spending levels were less so that I could also join with him in supporting this measure, but I will not be able to do so.

In the future, as we move forward, I hope that, next year, we bring the spending levels to an area that is acceptable and that continues these very necessary programs, because much of this bill is work that needs to be done in America. I am looking forward to working with the chairman on this bill next year to, hopefully, achieve those levels.

With that being said, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not opposed to the chairman's amendment in substance, but I am opposed to the amendment in process.

The amendment incorporates nine separate stand-alone amendments offered by Democrat Members of this body, thus ensuring that those Members would not have to go to the Rules Committee and plead just to have a perfectly legitimate amendment proposed on the floor.

It incorporates no Republican amendments. If I heard the chairman correctly this morning, there are 10 that could have been included, but were not.

Looking through the list of what's in the chairman's amendment, there is Career Pathways Innovation Fund for $5 million with an offset. There's a health resources and service administration with a $1 million offset. Going through the list, there's really not much that brings out any controversy. They could have stood alone. There perhaps is one that would not have been legitimate standing alone, which would include a prohibition to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs are Energy Star qualified or have a Federal energy management program designation. I think that one is probably protected under the rule.

But let me tell you what was not included because these amendments were not made in order. What was not included was a commonsense amendment to use technology to reduce unemployment insurance, improper and fraudulent payments.

What was not included was an amendment to prohibit the Department of Education from shutting down the largest student loan program that exists today.

What was not in order was an amendment to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from setting up any kind of rationed health care system.

What was not included was an amendment to prevent the government from nationalizing our health care system.

What was not included was an amendment to prevent the government

from imposing a costly health care mandate on small businesses which, if it had been permitted to be considered and if it had passed, would have saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs.

What was not included was an amendment to ensure that the only entity setting up Medicare reimbursement rates is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, not any other government agency or bureaucracy.

What is not included was a shift to add $1 billion to special education for new, never-before-tried programs.

What was not included was an amendment before us that would have addressed other issues that are important.

But what is in the amendment that is before us is systematically what's wrong with the process, and it disenfranchises the American people. So, therefore, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) felt it necessary to mention me as responsible for the increase in AIDS in the District of Columbia. This is a personal attack. Rarely do we see such a personal attack on the floor of the House.

He did it because he believes I'm responsible since I had the amendment that did restrict needles in the District of Columbia. Apparently, he felt like I was down there forcing people with AIDS to have relations, forcing drug abusers to take drugs. I just think it's very much a problem when we start being so personal in this attack.

He overlooks the fact that these people really need help overcoming the use of illegal drugs. That they're dependent on a lifestyle that only leads to destruction, and that I personally don't want to be part of that destruction. Many people in America feel like it's unnecessary.

He also overlooks the fact that many people who have studied long term the effect of the needles program believe it doesn't work. In Baltimore, where they followed the same drug abusers through the process, when they had access to the needles program, 90 percent of the people had a bloodborne illness.

I would consider 90 percent negative a failure. Now other people may think when 90 percent of the people attract a bloodborne illness like Hepatitis A or B or HIV positive or AIDS itself, that that would be a success. But to me, personally it's not.

I regret that I was brought into this personally and that I was personally attacked about this because I didn't force people to use illegal drugs, I didn't force people to have relationships with those who are positive in AIDS.

I think it's sad that when we personally found needles on school property in the area where needles were distributed before the restriction, that it's

sad we can't even protect the children of D.C. from being exposed to this type of activity.

I won't yield. I'm very pleased that the chairman of this committee has tried to allow areas of this country around schools, around places to be vacant of these systems. I think there's some good things in this bill about it, but I don't think the overall program has been successful.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, this is really a pretty straightforward amendment, but I want to put it in perspective. This bill is a 7 percent increase over last year's funding. The gentleman from Virginia is merely asking for a half of a percent reduction in something that is already increased by 7 percent. When you include what was allocated in the stimulus bill for these very same agencies, it is a 93 percent increase. So when you look at it in total, we are merely scratching the surface by having some common sense brought into the amount of money being spent.

Now, this doesn't eliminate any programs. This doesn't put anybody in a hardship. This simply says that rather than having 93 percent in total increase for this funding, that we are going to reduce it by a total of $11.15 billion. Now, this is $11.15 billion that we will not have to borrow and that our children will not have to pay back. This is money that we will not be obligated to return to the people in China.

So this is a commonsense amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that this, Mr. Speaker, takes the amendments that were not made in order by the rule en masse. It's very similar to what the manager did by, in aggregate, considering amendments, and I would ask that the Chair allow this vote up or down on the amendments that were not made in order by the rule.

I still am opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline). He's the ranking Republican on the Education and Labor Committee.

The motion is simple. It adds $1 billion for special education with offsets from an equal amount on other agencies. Americans are compassionate people. We want every American to climb the ladder of success, even if we have to provide the less fortunate with an escalator.

Almost 35 years ago when the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act, or IDEA as we refer to it, when it was enacted, the Federal Government mandated that our schools educate all children, even those with severe mental and physical disabilities. During the floor debate, it was clear the Federal Government was committed to pay 40 percent of the costs needed to educate a special-needs child. Today, however, we are falling short of that promise. Now, our good intentions have turned into bad consequences.

The Federal Government's mandate has undermined the public school system's ability to adequately meet the needs of the special children. This is not acceptable for either the children who need special education or those without disabilities who watch their education programs cut in order to fund IDEA.

Educating every child is the right thing to do, and I am proud that we are doing it today. Yet, IDEA has placed an extreme financial burden on our public schools, forcing school districts to rob Peter to pay Paul.

But we can fix this problem, this shortfall. By fully funding IDEA, we can put an end to this practice, helping all children reach their full potential.

I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying we only

take money from new programs or we continue programs that exist at a lower level than we have today to replace it with a higher priority program, IDEA, which meets the needs of our special-needs students, and also this will help preserve the ability to educate those who are not physically and mentally challenged in a better fashion. So I would urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Because this bill does have the right priorities for HBCUs and Ryan White treatment dollars and teen pregnancy, I support this legislation and the priorities of this committee.

Mr. Chair, I stand here today to express my support for H.R. 3293 the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriation Act of 2010. With an emphasis on job training, increased educational opportunities and the implementation of health and social safety nets, H.R. 3293 ensures that we will be able to effectively rise up out of the ashes of what has been categorized as the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The national economic crisis has begun to infiltrate every corner of this country, and my home State of Texas is no exception.

In Texas, unemployment has climbed to a staggering 7.6 percent, and in my own district of Houston, unemployment has risen to an unprecedented 6.4 percent. In January 2009, it was documented that Texas experienced an extensive job loss of 75,800 nonagricultural jobs. Accordingly, I am taking every possible measure to help the people of Houston, right down to hosting a comprehensive job fair for the people of my district this coming weekend. While States across the country reduce vital services, including those services that provide aid to the most vulnerable among us, we must make every legislative effort to remedy the negative and wide sweeping impact of this most devastating recession.

To tackle unemployment, joblessness and disparity, we must address the roots of the problem head-on. We need to invest our resources in the people of this country, and H.R. 3293 provides much needed assistance to do just that. The FY 2010 Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Bill is legislation that makes the necessary investments in our Nation's greatest treasure, our future.

Increasing Funding for Education

Increasing educational opportunities for students of every level, from every socio-economic background throughout our Nation will yield the greatest return on our investment. Providing access to educational opportunities is critical to the Nation's long term prosperity. H.R. 3293 will make the necessary investments to provide children with a 21st century education, will provide the resources to modernize our schools and colleges, and will provide funding to make college more affordable.

Just as I supported past legislation like H.R. 3081, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which placed a premium on providing funding for and lending institutional support to our Historical Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, and Predominantly Black Institutions, PBIs, H.R. 3293 also provides a comprehensive fiscal plan for 2010 to ensure that adequate funding is allocated to our HBCUs and PBIs.

HBCUs and PBIs as defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, HEA, as the following: A historically Black college or university is an institution of higher education established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of Black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation. Historically Black colleges or universities also include any branch campus of a

southern institution of higher education that prior to September 30, 1986, received a grant as an institution with special needs under HEA Section 321 and was formally recognized by the National Center for Education Statistics as a Historically Black College or University.

Predominantly Black Institutions are defined in HEA Section 318. These institutions meet basic eligibility under Title III, Section 312(b) and serve at least 40 percent Black American students. Basic eligibility under Title III, Section 312(b) of the HEA is met by institutions that: have low educational and general expenditures, E&G, or seek a waiver by submitting evidence that is both persuasive and compelling to have this requirement waived; have a requisite enrollment of needy students; are legally authorized within their respective State to award bachelors degrees or are a community college; and are accredited by a nationally or State recognized accrediting agency.

An institution is considered to have met the enrollment of needy students criterion if (1) at least 50 percent of its degree-seeking students receive financial assistance under one or more of the following programs: Federal Pell Grant Program, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, Federal Work-Study Program and/ or the Federal Perkins Loan Program or (2) the percentage of its undergraduate degree-seeking students who were enrolled at least halftime and received a Federal Pell grant met or exceeded the average for similar institutions.

We must invest in our Nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, and other Minority Serving Institutions. A digital disparity between HBCU campuses and their counterparts currently exists. There is a significant need among HBCUs to update technological equipment and to develop advanced and cutting edge educational and technological opportunities for students. In the face of the adversity that outdated technology poses, HBCUs continue to generate thousands of African-American graduates who are prepared to compete in and contribute to our global economy. HBCUs represent 9 of the top 10 colleges that graduate the most African-Americans who go on to earn Ph.D.s. HBCUs and PBIs continue to provide opportunity and advancement to African-American students, and therefore are worthy of federal support.

Accordingly, this bill provides $653 million to strengthen the capacity of HBCUs and PBIs, Hispanic-serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities and Native American-serving Institutions, Asian Pacific Islander, and Native American Institutions. This is $110 million over the President's request and $146 million over 2009. Additionally, H.R. 3293 provides for $178 million new loan guarantees for HBCUs and University facilities, which is nearly triple that of the 2009 level. As a Representative from the 18th Congressional District of Texas, I know firsthand that this will enable HBCUs like Texas Southern University in my district and Prairie View A&M University just outside of my district to thrive.

H.R. 3293 also provides an investment of $15.9 billion for Title I Education for the Disadvantaged Children Account, which will provide much needed support to underprivileged children in grades K through 12, and will give hope to the low income families in my district in Houston, that their children will receive quality education. This funding also places an emphasis on early childhood and family literacy programs. Furthermore, the bill provides $446 million for a Teacher Incentive Fund, which supports school districts and States that aim to reward effective teaching through compensation systems that reward entire high-need schools on the basis of increasing student achievement.

Green Jobs

Finally, this bill provides the necessary funding for increased employment opportunities and job training. H.R. 3293 appropriates $50 million, the same as the President's request, to prepare workers for careers in energy efficiency and renewable energy. This new administration initiative will support pre-apprenticeship programs and new careers for more than 8,000 workers in emerging green industries. In the tradition of our new administration, this Congress understands the energy concerns of the American people and we continue to work to ensure this Nation moves in a new direction to achieve energy independence and energy security.

I have long been a proponent of green education. For example, during the 110th Congress, I successfully offered amendments to the Comprehensive Energy Independence bill that was introduced late last year and voted out of the House.

Specifically, I have offered past amendments that would provide scholarships for post-secondary study in ethanol, wind, solar energy, and other green alternatives to petroleum. I have also offered an amendment to establish Energy Centers of Excellence, which would provide a consortium of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal universities, and majority serving institutions to develop curriculum and programs in green energy. Moreover, my amendments provided scholarships, and academic opportunities for minorities to study green energy. Thus, I have long been a proponent of the type of education and job provisions that this bill requires.

Indeed, I count myself as one on the forefront of this cause. As a representative of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, which includes the energy capital of the world, Houston, I am especially pleased to support this bill. This bill fosters education and increased job opportunity in green energy, which increasingly is becoming a viable alternative to petroleum.

Today, we as a global community must take the time out to appreciate the natural resources our planet has provided. It is also a day where we must better examine energy alternatives to carry forth the advancement of mankind and the preservation of the world at large. I have long been a proponent of green jobs, as evidenced in my support of H.R. 957, the Green Energy Education Act of 2009, which provided an opportunity to learn about the positive actions that we as a Nation can take to improve energy efficiency; to develop safe, renewable energy sources; to design goods that are durable, reusable, and recyclable; and to eliminate the production of harmful waste, while protecting our environment and encouraging sustainable development throughout the world.

H.R. 957 empowered leading authorities to teach and conduct the necessary research on energy consumption throughout our Nation. The research and studies are highly detailed, and carefully constructed to be statistically representative of the entire population, and are indicative of the indispensable analysis and policy planning required to execute a comprehensive green initiative. By providing the necessary funding to implement green research programs and new green job opportunities, policy planners will be in a position to better identify the highest-value energy efficient methods to decrease our dependency on foreign fuel.

Along with rising gas prices, weak economic growth, continued environmental warnings and scientific studies pointing to global warming, many Americans continue to worry about the state of energy security in the world. Adding green space in urban areas, investing in alternative energy, and ensuring our participation in the conservation of our planet's resources are just some ways that we can preserve our wonderful planet, and plan for our future. We now turn to our Federal Government to provide us with the resources to do so. I urge my colleagues today to pass this critical piece of legislation, as our Nation's long-term prosperity hangs in the balance.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself 2 minutes. Contrary to what was just said on the House floor, in fact, Dr. David Murray has pointed out in research that it's very mixed. In fact, in most cases,

the HIV virus does not come through needles. The overwhelming majority comes through sexual activity, not through the needles.

The District of Columbia, which seeks money from the Federal Government, unlike any other city, is then subject to restrictions. The District of Columbia had the strictest gun laws in the United States, yet led the country in the murder rate. The rest of the country can't be blamed for whatever problems they may have that are behavioral related in the District of Columbia.

The fundamental question is why Congress has repeatedly, over and over, banned needle exchange programs, when, given the opportunity, is: One, they may undermine community drug-prevention messages and programs. Two, providing needles acts as a way for drug users to sustain and support their intravenous drug use and does not address the primary illness of the drug addiction itself.

And, three, needle exchange programs direct critical resources away from treatment and intervention programs which have not proven to significantly affect HIV infection rates and drug use. Arguably, there is some, but it has not been substantial.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 3 additional minutes. I want to go through a number of statements regarding the needle exchange programs. This is a series of questions with Dr. David Murray, who was the ONDC policy analyst and expert in needle exchange, to resolve some of these.

In a nutshell, why doesn't the Federal Government fund needle exchange programs? The existing evidence cannot support the claim that distribution of needles to enable continued drug addiction behavior can meet these criteria.

Another question was: What is the current state of research regarding needle exchange programs? The most recent comprehensive analysis of the evidence by the U.S. Institute of Medicine is much retrenched from earlier claims that there were these overwhelming results.

For example, the report notes that the evidence that needle exchanges reduce HIV incidence is limited and inconclusive, that the evidence is even worse for Hepatitis C transmission, and that their impact on high- risk behaviors like sex-related risk is inconclusive.

What's the risk in States experimenting with implementing their own needle exchange programs? Are there potential unintended consequences? Indeed, the healer's motto is: First do no harm.

Evidence concerning the impact of needle exchange programs on both drug use and reduction, and disease transmission is by no means comforting. While the evidence is not clear and convincing that needle exchange make things actively worse, there are still grounds for concern.

There are reports of increased disease incidence, increased crime, and loss of drug deterrence in association with needle programs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas.

How much time do I have remaining?

I have tracked this issue for a long time. You can make allegations of studies, but studies are in fact very mixed on both sides, as I read from the office of National Drug Control Policy person who studied all the studies, worked with the people at night in the studies and, quite frankly and honestly, they're mixed.

There's a new recent study in Vancouver by somebody who advocated the program, who also advocates the legalization of marijuana, and he concluded that the study, at least in the downtown area of Vancouver, showed some progress on AIDS but no progress on heroin.

Now I mentioned Vancouver. Vancouver and Switzerland have been addressing this question long before the United States got into this. When you go over to Switzerland and study their program, they evolved first from a needle exchange to then having a place where they could inject, separate, then to the government of Switzerland providing the heroin and managing.

To some degree, they have reduced certain elements of problems. They did not reduce heroin abuse. In fact, you could argue they increased heroin abuse. They basically turned a bunch of people into zombies instead of addressing the social problem of heroin addiction.

Now in Vancouver, where I've been three times--and I encourage people to go to the Cop Squad site, policemen who have been dedicated to trying to counter what some of the government has been spreading about the drug problem in Vancouver.

Vancouver is a very interesting case because they were first. They were the first city in North America that in effect had a drug-free zone and dealt with the needles question. And it has been debated.

There are certain studies now that claim this is a brand new experiment. It's been going on for at least 10 years. The first time I was there, they had a needle exchange. They just had people in the street, with a stand, trying to do needles.

By the next time I went up there, they had an injection site, and they were out trying to reach and they had spread into the suburbs, because they didn't want people have to go just to downtown, they wanted it in the suburbs. And most of the studies were only studying the downtown area.

The third time I was there, they've got these guys out in the street peddling, trying to keep the police away.

Now let me read from an article about downtown Vancouver, where the Winter Olympics are going to be held, where we have a zero standard of narcotics on our athletes, yet they're going to be going to a city where, ``the junkies come here almost around the clock, seven days a week. Some just grab a fistful of clean syringes from one of the buckets by the door and head out again. But about 600 times a day, others walk in with pocketfuls of heroin, cocaine or speed that they've scored out on the street; sign in; go to a clean, well-lit room lined with stainless-steel booths; and, under the protective watch of two nurses, shoot their drugs into their veins.''

Welcome to North America's only officially sanctioned supervised injection site. The facility sits in the heart of Vancouver, 10 blocks that compose one of the poorest neighborhoods in all of Canada. The area is home to an estimated 4,700 intravenous drug users and thousands of crack addicts. For years it's been a world-class health disaster, not to mention a public relations nightmare for a town that is famous for its beautiful mountains and beaches and is gearing up to host the 2010 Winter Olympics. Nearly a third of the downtown East Side inhabitants are estimated to be HIV-positive, according to the U.N. Population Fund, a rate on par with Botswana. Twice that number have hepatitis C. Dozens die of drug overdoses every year. This has been a problem that has been building and building, now spreading to the suburbs of British Columbia. They have the first gun violence there, drug pushers moving there. It is an example of the failure of this program.

We are in the process of eliminating moral hazard in America. If you fail in your bank, we bail you out; if you fail in your business and go bankrupt, we bail you out. Now the question is, are we going to eliminate moral hazard in narcotics? At what point do we send a message not just this year but 5 years from now and 10 years from now that there's no accountability for your behavior, that everything is okay, we're just going to put you over the zone?

One of the problems with these zones is they're often where the homeless shelters are; they are often where the people that we have deinstitutionalized are. And they have seen a soaring of their addiction rates because we put these needles in places--although away from a school--they are just by the poorest people. But the people who are most vulnerable to seeing drug addiction for the first time, having free needles right there. And every society that has done this has also started to provide the free heroin. They are even now into providing free cocaine and free narcotics because they say, Well, the people won't go in. The lines are too long. That's the answer in Vancouver: ``The lines are too long, so we're doing it out on the street anyway.'' As you get more and more packed in in the different areas, you have to put in additional sites or, in fact, unless you provide the narcotics in the safe area and then the government--in fact, the taxpayers--are funding a habit.

We need to use this on drug treatment. We don't have enough dollars in drug treatment. We are, in fact, cutting back what prevention programs we do have. There is no longer a Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. It is proposed to be zeroed out and changed to Safe Schools. The drug czar has been taken down from a cabinet post to just another consultant. I don't even know if he's really a czar anymore. We've been cutting drug funds in this Congress. The question is, Is there going to be a moral hazard in America? Or are we just going to create a bunch of people who we just write off and don't pay attention? Walker Percy wrote a great book called The Thanatos Syndrome where he talks about a drug-addicted society that no longer has free will. Are we going to have accountability in America or not? And are we going to fund this type of project?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2010 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill and my Amendment to increase the Math and Science Partnership program funding by $5 million.

I want to thank Chairman Obey for including my amendment in the manager's amendment before us today. This program is the federal government's only generally available math and science teacher training program. By providing more resources to the Math and Science Partnership program at the Department of Education the program would be able to expand to additional schools across the county, and countless students would benefit from improved instruction in these critical subject areas. If our economy is going to grow, if our productivity is going to grow, we must do better in math and science education.

Mr. Chair, this $5 million increase in funding is long overdue, and yet still far short of what is needed. We are not doing nearly enough in this area, and everyone says so.

The Glenn Commission, on which I was honored to serve said so, the National Academies of Science have said so. And the recently released report by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Institute for Advanced Study entitled ``The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy'' called for increasing the ``supply of well-prepared teachers of mathematics and science at all grad levels by improving teacher preparation . . .''

That is why representative Ehlers and I led a letter to the House Appropriations Committee to increase funding for the Math and Science Partnership program to $450 million that was joined by 23 Members of Congress.

In 2002, prior to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Eisenhower program provided $485 million for teacher professional development primarily in science and math. Yet, today the Math and Science Partnership program is funded at less than half that level at only $179 million.

Earlier this year, Education Secretary Duncan stated that ``science education is central to our broad effort to restore American leadership in Education worldwide'' and yet the budget proposal from the Department flat funded this essential training program again.

We need to change this cycle of recognizing problems, identifying solutions, and then failing to act.

My amendment was offered to increase funding for the Math and Science Partnerships program, and I know all too well that the $5 million included will not solve the problem.

I hope this serves as recognition that we cannot be a global economic power unless we make the appropriate investments in education, with special focus on math and science education. We may never know how many students could have benefited over the past seven years from full funding, but I hope that we will soon be able to restore funding to this program to its pre-2002 levels.

Again, I want to thank the Chairman for including my amendment and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to express regret that full funding for disability access programs under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was not included in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as the amendment I offered to the bill would have done. Three years after its final implementation deadline, the promise of disability access under HAVA still has not been fulfilled and I believe we should make that a priority before the next general election.

On June 10, 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report indicating that much work is yet to be done to ensure full access to the polls. It stated, in part, that ``[w]hile the percent of polling places with multiple impediments decreased significantly from 2000, still a fair number--16 percent--had four or more potential impediments in 2008. Over 50 percent of polling places had one or more potential impediments on the path from the parking lot to the building entrance, while 14 percent had potential impediments from the building entrance to the voting area.'' According to the GAO, currently only 27 percent of polling places are fully accessible. Therefore, I believe it is time we distributed to the states the full amount originally authorized and contemplated by HAVA to ensure full access to the polls, in time to achieve that goal before the election in November 2010.

It has been argued that additional funding is not needed in this bill because some funding previously appropriated has not been spent. But when one understands why, it becomes clear that the remaining funds are still needed. HAVA originally anticipated that funding for polling place accessibility and protection and advocacy could go directly to local election officials, but subsequently the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that it would only take applications from state departments of elections. Funds therefore had to pass through Congress, HHS, and state departments of elections before being distributed to local officials, which has significantly slowed down the process.

The Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) program has never been fully funded, and the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) advises me that this year, nearly ten months into the 2009 Fiscal Year, PAVA funding has still not been released to protection and advocacy organizations. This has forced them to ration carryover funds to allow continuity of existing projects, giving the appearance that they are sitting on money in the bank when in fact they are simply trying to keep their programs running on a shoestring without interruption. ``Those who question why PAVA funds still exist in accounts need to look no further than the inconsistent funding and distribution history of this program,'' NDRN said.

That is why I offered an amendment to increase HAVA disability access funding by $20 million, and protection and advocacy funding by $5 million, so that the disability access funding in this year's appropriation bill would reach the level originally authorized and contemplated by HAVA. I regret that the full funding for disability access was not included in the bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that full funding for disability access under the Help America Vote Act is appropriated in the next fiscal cycle.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Amendment offered by my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Pence, to the Fiscal Year 2010 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill.

I have long been a supporter of Planned Parenthood and the services it offers to my Central New Jersey constituents. Mr. Pence's purely political amendment would deny funds under Title X of the Public Health Services Act to Planned Parenthood health facilities throughout the country. It would cut these women off from their source of primary care. At a time when more and more women and families are facing difficulties in accessing health care due to a provider shortage in this county, Congress should be doing everything we can to ensure that women have access to a trusted health care provider.

This should not be an anti-choice or pro-choice debate about one of the many services that Planned Parenthood provides. This amendment would have no effect on abortion services in our country. 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. The Pence amendment would deny essential family planning services to the 5 million Americans that Planned Parenthood serves annually, including the 89,000 men and women in New Jersey.

This debate should be about prevention. It should be about continuing to provide women with the necessary tools for prevention, including contraception and education. It should be about protecting women's health by providing women with access to reproductive health care. We all should be able to agree that we would like to see fewer abortions performed in this country, and comprehensive family planning services that Planned Parenthood provides are a proven means to accomplish that. Title X has proven to be effective and prevents 1 million unwanted pregnancies each year. Planned Parenthood, as the Nation's oldest and largest family planning provider, is responsible for preventing 60 percent of unwanted pregnancies, approximately 631,000 unwanted pregnancies annually.

Planned Parenthood's 841 affiliates make up 13 percent of all Title X providers and provide 1.7 million women with reproductive health care services under title X each year. 63 percent of these patients receive reproductive health care services and 37 percent receive family planning services.

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. We should not act to prevent women from getting the reproductive health care they need. I urge my colleagues oppose the Pence amendment.