Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have already explained the motion and in the interest of saving time and also striking the last word to sum up in the end, I am going to ask that Members vote to strike the enacting clause so that we can repair this bill in the manner I have just described. I hope they do that. In the event that they do not, I am urging Members to vote no, because we do not believe that we ought to say to the country that we have room for $2 trillion in tax cuts, including an $88,000 tax cut for persons making over $1 million a year, but we do not have any room in the inn for children who need health care or need more help in Title I, for school districts who need more help on special education, and all of the others problems we have described today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply urge the Chairman not to insist on the point of order. If he does, I would concede the point of order and move on to the next motion I have already described.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I plead absolutely fully guilty to wanting to spend more money to invest in education and to spend more money so we can guarantee that poor kids are not knocked off Medicaid and SCHIP programs so that they have some health care when they need to be seen by a doctor. Fully Guilty! I also plead fully guilty to wanting to spend more money for NIH so we can deal with the ravages of cancer, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease and the like. One example: a year ago my brother-in-law was diagnosed with terminal pancreas cancer, 1 year ago. He is still alive because he is lucky enough to have gotten into a clinical trial, and they found a drug that seems to be working for him. I plead fully guilty to wanting to add a lot more money to the Federal budget so that a lot more people can be as lucky as he is. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia. (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), former chief school officer of his State. (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Chairman, we come together all right when we have good bills to come together on, but this bill is a turkey, and that is why on this occasion we are not for it. I will also be inserting in the Congressional Record when we get into the full House several charts which relate to what the gentleman just said that demonstrate the error of his ways. I would also point out to the gentleman, he is factually incorrect if he says that this bill was earmarked when the Democrats were in control. There were no earmarks whatsoever. In fact, Bill Natcher, the last Democratic chairman of this subcommittee, prided himself on not having any earmarks. With respect to the subcommittee that I chaired for foreign operations, there were no earmarks in the foreign operations bill when I chaired that subcommittee either. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I forgot, but I want to state here and now that I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). And I know that the gentleman from Ohio, as chairman of this subcommittee, if more money would have been available, would have put the money in the right places. His heart is in the right place. I understand that. My problem is that the policy of the majority party has prevented Chairman Regula from being Chairman Regula. The problem is that we are told as a result of the tax cuts that we can somehow afford $2 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade, over 40 percent of which are targeted at the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country, but somehow we cannot afford $3 billion, not trillion, but $3 billion more to educate our kids, or $3 billion more to help see to it that kids do not lose their health coverage in a time of national economic problems. I think that is a sad, sad commentary on the priorities of this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I believe opportunity is the key, but I think it is very difficult to have opportunity if you do not have an education. It is very difficult to have opportunity if you do not have decent health. The only choice before us is what we think is more important: Using $6 billion to provide better education for our kids and making sure that kids are not knocked off health care rolls around the country, or whether to use that $6 billion to make sure that people who make more than $1 million a year get an $88,000 tax cut rather than a $44,000 tax cut. That is the only issue before us here today. I am highly amused when I hear Republicans come to the floor and talk about how much they have done for education. I want to show what the record shows because I negotiated every one of the education budgets for the last 10 years. I was one of the four people in the room when the numbers were decided. Here is what happened. In fiscal year 1995, the Republican House majority tried to cut $1.7 billion from the previous education budget. They tried to abolish the Department of Education, and they even shut down the government to try to force President Clinton to swallow those priorities. They lost. In fiscal year 1996, the House Republicans tried to cut $3.6 billion from the previous year's education funding. They lost. In 1997, the House Republicans tried to cut $2.8 billion from the Clinton budget for education. They failed. In 1998, the House Republicans tried to cut $660 million from the Clinton education budget. They failed. In fiscal year 2000, the House Republicans tried to cut $1.4 billion from the Clinton budget, they failed. In 2001, they tried to cut $3 billion out of the Clinton budget for education. They failed. Now they are trying to take credit for their failures. I find that interesting; I find that fascinating. I would call it near-Enron accounting. By all means if they want to climb on board and claim that they were funding that they tried to stop, be my guest. The country knows otherwise. Nobody believes them. All I can say is that in Washington the worse thing that can happen to a politician is when they believe their own baloney, and we have heard a lot of it here today. The House Republican Record on Education Funding Lately, the Republican Majority has attempted to claim credit for education funding increases, and to reinvent their record on education. Just a few years ago, however, Republicans were calling for the demise of the Department of Education and billions in education cuts. If the House Republican position on education had prevailed over a 9-year period, House Republicans would have spent $20 billion less on education. One of the first actions of the new House Republican majority in the spring of 1995 was to rescind $1.7 billion ($1.635 billion in HR 1158 and $65 million in HR 889) in FY 1995 education funding. Democrats succeeded in reducing the final rescissions to less than $600 million. House Republicans then led an attack on education in the FY 1996 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill when they proposed only $20.8 billion for the Department of Education-- a cut of $3.6 billion below the already-reduced FY 1995 level and $5.0 billion below President Clinton's education request. The House Republican LHHS bill was $2.0 billion below the final conference version of the LHHS bill supported by Democrats, which restored the majority of the Republican cuts. House Republicans passed a FY 1997 LHHS-Education appropriations bill that provided $22.8 billion for education, a cut of $2.8 billion below the request and $3.6 billion below the final conference level for education. Democrats and President Clinton were successful not only in reversing these Republican-led cuts, but increasing education funding in real terms, to the funding levels approved in the last Democratic Congress. Following the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement, the FY 1998 LHHS-Education appropriations bill included a bipartisan agreement to provide $29.3 billion for education. Democrats secured an additional $410 million in the final conference version of the bill. House Republicans were back to their old tricks in FY 1999. They could not even pass their FY 1999 LHHS bill--it was so mired in controversy. The Republican LHHS bill reported by the Appropriations Committee included $30.5 billion for education, $2.6 billion less than the $33.1 billion provided in the final conference agreement on LHHS. In the House of Republican FY 2000 Labor-HHS-Education bill reported by the Committee--a bill that never saw the light of day on the House floor--$33.3 billion was included for education, nearly $2.4 billion less than the $35.7 billion included in the final conference agreement. In FY 2001, House Republicans included $37.1 billion in the House-passed Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. This amount was a stunning $.9 billion below the amount secured by the Clinton White House and Congressional Democrats for education in the final conference agreement ultimately reached in December 2000. In FY 2002, House Democrats succeeded in obtaining a commitment from President Bush to support another $4 billion for the FY 2002 LHHS 302(b) allocation. As a result, the House-passed LHHS bill provided $49.3 billion for education, an increase of $4.7 billion over the Bush request. The House level was scaled back slightly (by $336 million) in the final conference agreement. In FY 2003, House Republicans punted on the Bush education budget, which would have cut No Child Left Behind programs by $90 million--until after the elections. Although they failed to hold a subcommittee or committee mark up, House Republicans introduced a LHHS bill that provided the President's request of $50.3 billion. This Republican LHHS bill was $2.8 billion below the final level agreed to in the FY 2003 omnibus bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I received unanimous consent earlier to insert a table after my remarks, which I will do, which will lay out clearly what the record has been over the last 10-year period. All I would say in further rebuttal to my good friend: Regardless of what each of us argues the past shows, the issue today is whether we are for $6 billion more for education and health care for kids and sick people, or whether you are for using that $6 billion to make sure that our struggling millionaires get a double-sized tax cut. I think the public will see by the votes who is for what.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.