Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 24, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Kirk:

In title III in the item relating to ``School Improvement Programs'' insert before the period at the end the following: ``: Provided further, That, of the funds made available under this heading, $11,100,000 is for carrying out subpart 6 of part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7253 et seq.) (relating to gifted and talented students)''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman----

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Is there objection to returning to that point in the reading to consider the amendment?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that the agreement worked between majority and minority to have the Kirk and Nadler amendments brought up is now being broken?

The CHAIRMAN. The order of the House did not address the reading of the bill.

Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, because of the rapid reading of the bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and I were both unable to offer our amendments and worked out an agreement to offer it at this time. The amendment that I would have offered would have helped restore funding for the gifted education program under the Javitz program that funds programs in over 20 States and universities. It is this program that has helped out programs like the Bronx Project for creating urban excellence, serving 32,000 poor and minority students.

Not only did this program help the gifted students, for example, in that school district, but it improved math and science scores, a 20 percent improvement for the entire school, not just gifted students. The Javitz program has supported programs in 125 State and local education districts since 1989, reaching two million students nationwide. A complete list of the program is available from the Department of Education.

I am very concerned that this program was zeroed out. In my attempt to earmark the program, other programs under this title would have been seen as a potential cut, and my colleagues from Hawaii were very concerned about one program there. My concern now is that the program moves forward with zero for gifted education. And the attempted amendment was to correct that, because I do not think for the future of our country, for the future of science and math education that we should move forward with a zero appropriation for gifted education. But I yield to my chairman on this point. Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I understand that we are breaking this agreement then?

I yield to the distinguished ranking minority member.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would not describe it as breaking the agreement. If the gentleman would be kind enough to let me explain what I think has happened here. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) both missed their opportunity to offer their amendments in regular order because the reading went fast and neither of them was on the floor. We had a unanimous consent agreement which was about to be propounded by the gentleman from Ohio.

When the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from New York discovered that they had missed their opportunity, the gentleman from Illinois asked for an opportunity to go back. At that point, I suggested that the unanimous consent agreement be rewritten to include your amendment and the gentleman's from New York. The committee majority preferred, and I can understand why, because it was time consuming, the committee preferred to simply rely on our ability to get unanimous consent to go back to consider yours and the gentleman from New York's amendment.

However, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) was not part of the arrangement. And since your amendment takes money out of a program in his State, he felt required to object. So I do not think that anyone is ``breaking an agreement.''

This is what happens, number one, when Members are not on the floor when they need to be. Secondly, it is what happens when we do not include matters like that in the UC agreement. We were relying on an assumption that proved to be erroneous, and I am certain the gentleman from Ohio feels as badly about it as I do. But in my view, no one on the floor is breaking his word. This is just an unfortunate set of circumstances, and a Member has the right to protect his own State's interest if the opportunity presents itself.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, given the fact that we are breaking this agreement, and given the fact that I am not able to offer my amendment, my normal course of action would be to object, but I hold the gentleman from New York in high regard, as the gentleman from Iowa, and so I am not going to be partisan and I am not going to do tit for tat, and I am not going to object, even though objection has been heard from the other side. So I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment because it seeks to overturn two court decisions and what Judge Wedoff said was ``The least of the bad'' alternative ``choices here has got to be the one that keeps the airline functioning, that keeps employees being paid.'' We have to look out for the interests of all people, especially the 62,000 employees of United Airlines right now, just crawling out of bankruptcy, on whom the future of the entire western Chicagoland region, O'Hare Airport, and many of the related businesses depend. If we push United into bankruptcy, and especially if we push her further into liquidation, we will not only have an employee pension problem, but we will have a massive unemployment problem. We will also jeopardize the crown jewel of the economic development programs for Illinois, which is the modernization of O'Hare airport. O'Hare airport and its modernization depends on a functioning United Airlines. And for us to interfere with the two court decisions and the already declared decisions of four unions with United is a great mistake.

I think we should make sure that this process moves forward, we should make sure that this airline continues to function, and we should make sure that the 62,000 current employees of United are allowed to find their way back into profitability so they can put food on their table, especially in my district and other Illinois districts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today urging the conference, when it meets, to restore funding to the Javits gifted and talented program, which was unfortunately zeroed out in this bill. Javits reaches a critical group of diverse gifted children who are not high income. In fact, they are low income, but have extraordinary abilities.

In my home State of Illinois, education for gifted kids has been cut completely out of the State's budget. In response I developed my own Tenth District laureates program as a way to challenge gifted students in my own district. The program has become a huge success, providing these students with behind-the-scenes access to top academic and cultural institutions in Chicago and surrounding suburbs. And these gifted children were motivated by this unique opportunity.

I think we must fund gifted education on a national level to allow millions of children across the country to have the same types of challenges our Tenth District laureates enjoy. As the only federally funded national gifted program, grants provided through Javits have provided 125 State and local education districts since its inception in 1989, reaching 2 million gifted students nationwide. Last year the program was funded at $11.1 million. It is a program particularly needed, given the low scores of Americans on standard international math and science tests.

Positions in the field of science and engineering are growing at a rapid rate, yet the United States is facing a critical shortage in these areas. Just one demonstration program funded by this grant, the project creating urban excellence in the Bronx, resulted in a 20 percent improvement in math and science scores for all students of the entire school.

I think we must invest in the future of our children, and I urge the conferees to restore funding for the Javits gifted and talented program.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. And I do agree that funding gifted and talented education in this country is an important mission. We must continue to provide support for our brightest students to succeed, especially in the areas of math and science.

I hope the gentleman understands that with such a tough budget allocation, we did not have the resources to support everything we would have liked to have done, including some important and successful programs like the Javits program for gifted and talented students.

I will work with the gentleman from Illinois to address this issue in conference.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank my chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov