are largely funded by state and local governments. the federal government is a 9% investor and the reason that the federal role was created in the first place was to help mitigate against some

of the issues that the call are talks about. so -- that the the caller talks about. so i suggest in the poor communities they have more title one schools, more schools with federal aid. but

fundamentally school equalization are issues reserves to states primarily. there have been many lawsuits and debates around that issue for many decades. and it is something states struggle with.

one thing the federal government aims to do is help level that playing field. host: maple glen, pennsylvania is next. caller: thank you for c-span my favorite show. secretary, i differ with

you bringing in the farm students. i think -- foreign students. i think we should be supporting our high school students that are good in science and math, getting them some types of scholarships,

helping them along the way rather than bringing in foreign students. i have seen i have seen children in the u.s. with high academic and s.a.t. scores and not getting into some of the better scores

and we are supporting the schools even when they are private schools, in a backdoor way. i also think that some of the reasons why our grammar schools and high schools are lacking in science and math

is bus ecause i'm in my fifth season and some of the teachers thats got into the schools, the reason when you got out with sci the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 157. the nays

are 259. the motion is not adopted. without objection, the tion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr.

miller, to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendments to h.r. 5715, on which the yeas y and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5715, an act

to ensure continued availability of access to the federal student loan program for students and families. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and concur?

the -- in the senate amendments. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation

with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house

of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 388. the nays are 21. 2/3 being in the affirmative, les are suspended, the senate amendments are agreed to. and without

objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: can we have some order in the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? the gentleman

from missouri. mr. blunt: the gentleman from missouri would like to address the house for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the republican

be one bill -- you mentioned one bill. is there a chance there will be two bills coming out of financial services that may be incorporated there? >> mr. hoyer: it is possible. i have not

conferred with mr. frank, the chairman, so i can't say that. i'm not absolutely sure, but the answer to your question, it's possible. mr. blunt: could we have a little more order, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: members take your conversations outside the chambers and please take seats. mr. blunt: the gentleman also mentioned we had a possibility or at least your hope to consider

the farm bill conference report. i know there are some other conference reports out there, the budget, higher education, consumer product safety. we've got 11 working days left before we take

the district work period. at memorial day, i wonder if the gentleman has the sense if any one of those might be available during that period of time? and i would yield? mr. hoyer: if i had it, all

of them would be within the context. the chairman of the budget committee is on the floor. he has been working very hard. and i believe we are close on the budget conference. i believe that

may be a possibility. there may well be other conference reports available as well. i cannot tell you now specifically that there are bills that i'm absolutely assured will be ready for that

time frame, but i do believe there will be significant pieces ready. i'm looking for a list so i can give it to you. the d.o.d. authorization bill will be considered on the week of the 18th,

i believe. that's the week of the 18th. and the supplemental is obviously on our radar screen. and we hope to pass the supplemental before we leave as well. i was hoping for next week. that still

is a possibility, but i'm not assured they will be in place, they being mr. obey and in our discussions, i'm not sure what his plans will be, whether he can move it ahead that quickly. those are

three of the major, the budget conference, the farm bill conference, the supplemental and the d.o.d. authorization. major pieces of legislation i want to see passed before we leave. mr. blunt:

first of all on the one, the higher education conference, i think the current bill expired last evening. will we extend that, would be the gentleman's intention that we extend the current bill

next week as well as the other work that's been listed? and i would yield. mr. hoyer: that is an option. in the best ofll possible worlds, the conference would be completed and we could pass the

bill itself. if that does not happen, we contemplate an extension. mr. blunt: on the supplemental, you mentioned mr. obey, is there a possibilityhat the supplemental might be earmarked up. during

committee -- i know during the five weeks that we talked about this, sort of there had been a -- you announced the hope that we would have the supplemental on the floor either in the last week

of april or every time said, no later than the first week in may. we're not there yet, but we get there next week. you now would not anticipate that on the floor, one question? and the other

is, where are we on the question whether the committee will mark that supplemental up or come to the floor in some other way and i would yield? mr. hoyer: i think that's still up in the air.

i know that's of concern to you and i understand that concern, but i will tell you candidly, i think it's still up in the air. mr. obey is discussing with the senate how we think we can move

forward as expeditiously as possible and try to achief the end. as you know there is substantial discussion about what is in the supplemental. the president has indicated that -- mr. nussle has

indicated that anything above the dollars asked essentially for iraq and afghanistan are included for investment here in this country on various different items, perhaps dealing with unemployment

Spoken By Steny H. Hoyer

ifte they were in the supplemental, they wouldn't have to comply with the pay-go provisions of the current rules of the house. and i'd yield. mr. hoyer: as it relates to the first item, the

g.i. bill, there is a comprehensive g.i. bill sponsored by mr. webb and ms. herseth and others have legislation which tries to respond to the critical need that our veterans returning from

afghanistan and iraq now have, because they have substantially less generous benefits and therefore, less opportunity to re-integrate themselves into the community and stablize themselves and their

families. we believe that is the cost of the war. i don't believe that under the current suggestion -- and i'm not suggesting in or out, i'm not suggesting there is anything in or out in terms

of the proposal, but it's my belief that that would not require a waiver of the pay-go, given that the context in which it may be considered. and what i mean by that, is that we may respond

to the need this coming year as opposed to a longer term. . mr. blunt: would that apply if we look at, as an economic provision to the bill as well? mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. blunt:

i would. mr. hoyer: we came together and agreed on the package of a stimulus package. we thought our economy was either about to go in recession or was in recession. not at the time we

passed it but that seems to be the case now and the stimulus package was designed to keep us out or bring us out of a recession and to try to help our people who are at risk. as you know, we did

that on an emergency basis. the reason we did that on an emergency basis, we felt in terms of stimulating the economy, you didny,'t want to stimulate and depress at the same time. so the answer

to your question, for instance, on unemployment insurance, that may well fall in that same category from our perspective. mr. blunt: i thank the gentleman for that. i'd suggest if that was the criteria

that on the expired research and development credits or the expired deductability of sales tax from income tax in those states that had the deductability for a few years ending on december 31, or

even on the alternative minimum tax protection for people who don't pay that tax now, it would seem to me they would meet that same criteria of having negative economic impact as we let those

research and development credits expire or as we no longer allow people in florida and texas and other states to deduct their sales tax before they pay their income tax, or if we let the

a.m.t. patch extend to a number of people and i don't know if there is a way to handle those issues under that same umbrella of economic impact or not. but i'd yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the

gentleman for his observations. i think he and i have a difference on the perception of some of the items that he mentioned as being analogous to some of the other items we have discussed. on the

a.m.t., for instance, there is a disagreement on the alternative minimum tax. the alternative minimum tax was not intended, i think, by any of to us impact the people that it's now impacting. we

believed -- i believed strongly that we ought to fix the a.m.t., not just for this coming year, but permanently and we ought to pay for that. the reason i think we ought to do that is, a, it

clearly falls within the pay-go and secondly, because i think that our generation incurred this liability and we ought to pay for that liability. but some of the things that we have

already mentioned i think are more analogous, not to tax extenders given additional tax relief or fixing the a.m.t., but are as the u.i. is, unemployment insurance, directed to an emergency that

confronts us as a result of the substantial down turn in the economy, which is analogous, i think, to the stick us will package which is why we didn't consider that to be a pay go issue. and we're

prepared not to address it in a pay-go way. mr. blunt: i hear that answer and i respect it. but i also believe that when we've let these tax policies expire, they have some of the same economic

consequences and i suppose that can be debated when we get to that point in the debate. but selective waiving of pay-go, i hope we have developed some principles here that n may be apply to other

things -- maybe apply to other things as well and i think we've discussed that and i appreciate the fact that we've had a difference on this for some time. but, you know, in states that are -- i

mentioned a couple of states that are particularly impacted by the credit situation that we face right now on the sales tax deductability. that's just another burden on taxpayers that may

be dealing with another problem that's part of the overall economic challenge we face right now. and just like the stimulus package, waived pay-go to try to help solve this problem, i'd suggest that

there may be items beyond unemployment insurance that equally are related and may be even more contributetory to the problem than unemployment insurance and i'd yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. you mentioned the states. one of the things that we're very concerned about is the very substantial fiscal adverse impact of the states that will be caused by the change

in the medicaid regulations proposed by the administration. that is one of the items under consideration because that change, as i understand it from mr. waxman, as a matter of fact, we just

talked about it, will have a very great adverse financial impact on the states and i'm sure you received a letter similar to the one that i received from both democratic and republican governors

asking to us address that. so there clearly are some items on which have impact on the states and very frankly the discussion is, how many of those do we try to address, if any, in the supplemental,

how many do we address in a stimulus package or how many do we addressn separate legislation. one of the positive aspects of the stimulus package is, you will recall because you and i were in the room,

was that secretary paulson on behalf of the administration, the speaker, u and i and mr. boehner, sat down together and talked about how we could get from where we were to where we wanted

to get and we came to an agreement. we have been unable to do that as you know on some of these things that we think is of serious concern. the medication regulations are an exafrpbl

of that. mr. blunt: i appreciate that and i do recall those discussions. also the tax policies that encourage purchases by -- that createobs are in place and as all of us know, the initial checks that go