AMENDMENT NO. 24 OFFERED BY MR. NADLER

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

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Nadler:

In title III in the item relating to ``School Improvement Programs'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $35,600,000)''.

In title III in the item relating to ``Departmental Management--Program Administration'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $35,600,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendment at this point?

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I understand that we are breaking this agreement then?

I yield to the distinguished ranking minority member.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to returning in the reading to consider the amendment?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois for his magnanimity and largeness of thought in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to restore the funding for Arts in Education programs to $35.6 million. Unfortunately, the underlying Labor-HHS appropriations bill zeros out this program, effectively eliminating it.

This year, 106 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle, include my friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), joined me in writing to the committee asking for $53 million in Arts in Education funding. Given the funding constraints in the bill, the amendment instead asked that we simply level fund the program, the number passed after conference last year.

This program provides funds to establish model programs at the Department of Education that brings arts education to schools across the country as well as funds to support the professional development of arts educators. The program also supports the ongoing national arts education initiatives of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and VSA arts which ensure that people with disabilities can learn through, participate in and enjoy the arts.

Time and again, parents, educators and community leaders tell us that arts education is critical for preparing our Nation's children to succeed in school, work and life. Years of research demonstrate that a real significant link exists between arts education and students' academic performance and social development.

Arts funding and education funding is not controversial and is nonpartisan. Some of the most vocal proponents of Arts in Education include Republican Governor Mike Huckabee and former Education Secretary Rod Paige. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman REGULA) also is supportive of Arts in Education programs.

I would like to thank the gentleman for working with the Senate each year to increase funding in conference, and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership on this issue. I understand that this is a tight bill in a tight funding year generally, but it is important that the House voice its support for this program.

So I ask the distinguished chairman and the ranking member to work with me and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to assure that funds for these beneficial, well-liked programs are maintained, if not increased, in conference this year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to offer this amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). I would only stress of all the learning disciplines, the arts tap and expand the human imagination the most, and in a world of exploding options for individuals and families, it is imperative when there is no experience to serve as a guide, that the imagination be stimulated and perspectives be applied and that values be brought to bear.

It appears that the children of 20th century America lost something when they became captives to passive education offered by advances in media, particularly television. If we can learn from our mistakes, an emphasis on hands-on efforts, particularly in the creative arts, should become a focal point of 21st century education.

For most Americans, the arts are an optional endeavor. But for some, art is a principal means of self-expression and communication. For example, last month 17-year-old Patrick Henry Hughes won the VSA arts 2005 soloist award for his piano and vocal abilities. In an interview, he said, ``I am blind and I can't walk, but I don't let it stop me. I actually love the life I am living. If I have a sad moment, I go to the piano and get happy again.''

We must ensure that every young person with a disability has access to arts learning experiences. VSA arts, which are part of the Arts in Education programming eliminated in this bill, provides opportunities for children and adults with disabilities and stimulates millions of people, like Patrick Hughes, helping to transform their otherwise frustrating world into one that is more beautiful and purposeful.

Mr. Chairman, the arts are not a luxury, they are the soul of society.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the arts motivate and inspire people of all ages to engage in learning, and that is what this is all about. Students who take regular arts courses are proven to score on average 90 to 100 points better on their SATs than students that do not take arts classes. Students that attend arts courses are shown to have better attendance, lower dropout rates, participate in more community service and have a higher self-esteem. That sounds to me like a pretty darn good investment in the youth of America.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am not clear that I am going to ask for a vote on this amendment. If we get an appropriate assurance that we will work in conference from the chairman, we may not have to do that. I will ask the chairman to express himself on that subject.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This, like many programs, is a great idea, a great help, with over 100 grants last year, but we do have a really tight budget. I know when we get to conference with the other body, that this probably will be one that has support, but it all depends on what is available in funding. I am sympathetic to it, but I cannot guarantee anything. I think we would have to consider it.

It has a trade-off, that is the problem at this juncture in your amendment, and that is it would cause the layoff of many employees.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has expired.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am responding to the question from the gentleman from New York, and that is, yes, we will certainly take this under consideration in the conference. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished chairman from Ohio as to the fact that there will be efforts made in conference to try to retain this program. I think that is probably the best we can do, and I appreciate his statement. I will at this point not ask for a vote on this amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

The amendment was rejected.