Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. That again illustrates what Will Rogers said when he said when two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. The gentleman's opinion may very well be the sound one; ours may very well be the sound one. But in this instance, this bill is the unanimous product of the Committee; and I think we have made the best judgment about where the money ought to go under the circumstances, and I would urge that we not cut this program. This treatment program would be cut below last year's level; and given the problem that we have with this issue, I do not think that we ought to be doing that.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Florida for one very simple reason: it is very easy for any individual Member to second guess what this Committee has done and come to the floor and say we should have put $10 million here rather than having put $10 million there. I have seen many a Member come to the floor; and no matter how high we have had an individual account, some have said to me, frankly, no matter what the committee puts in, I will offer an amendment to add $10 million or $20 million because that way they get their day in court. Mr. Chairman, I suggest in this instance we should not do that. The gentleman is trying to take $60 million out of an account that has received a $15 million increase. He is trying to put the money into an account that has received a $60 million increase. This account has already been increased four times as much as the account that the gentleman is trying to take money out of. Secondly, the treatment grants that the gentleman seeks to cut in fact under this amendment are being cut below last year's level. I do not believe that we ought to do that. I would urge Members of the House to respect the many hours of hearings that we have held on these subjects. These are all judgment calls. I respect the gentleman's right to offer the amendment, but I would urge that Members stick with the committee. There will be amendments today that I am very much in favor of personally, but which I will oppose because we have an understanding that we are going to try to resist all amendments from either side of the aisle in order to keep the delicately balanced bipartisan bill, which it is at this point; and I would not want to begin to unravel that. Besides, substantively I believe the gentleman is in error in seeking to make the reduction that he is in this account. I would urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members again to recognize that we have hammered out over a 7-month period a bipartisan bill which does not meet anybody's idea of what is pluperfect, but represents a reasonable compromise between all of us. I urge Members to stick with that judgment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the account that the gentleman is asking that we increase has been increased in this bill by 100 percent. The account that the gentleman would cut in order to finance the increase that he is asking for is the account that funds infectious disease control efforts at CDC; it is the account that funds the disease detectives who are right now at this very moment searching for anthrax; it is the account that funds breast and cervical screening; it is the account that funds TB control; it is the account that funds sexually transmitted diseases; and, in addition to that, the gentleman cuts the Child Care Block Grant account. Now, I would point out that with respect to the item that the gentleman seeks to increase, he seeks to increase the funding that we are providing for abstinence programs. I fully support those programs. I voted for them in the past, and I have helped the gentleman get the funding for them. I would point out that the increase that the gentleman has gotten in this bill for those family planning programs is twice as high as the increase that we have provided in this bill for the traditional family planning programs. So the gentleman has already gotten the better part of the deal. Now he is asking us to fund yet another increase. And I have no problem with that increase. I have no problem with it whatsoever. If the gentleman wants to cut back some tax cuts in order to pay for it, or if he wants to find some other reasonable accounts to cut, fine, I am all for it. But I am not for funding a greater than 100 percent increase in this account by reducing the other accounts before us. I find it ironic that the previous amendment is trying to increase the activities that the gentleman is trying to cut with this amendment. This committee is being whipsawed. One minute we are being hit from the northeast, and the next minute we are being hit from the southwest. We are in the center with this bill. We have got a bipartisan compromise, we have got reasonable increases for all of these programs, and I would urge that in the interests of maintaining the balance in this bill, that we oppose the gentleman's amendment. If we can find some other way in conference to increase funding for this in a balanced way, I have no sweats about that. But I am certainly not interested in funding this increase at the expense of the decreases that I have just described.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes. Mr. Chairman, Jim Dyer, Craig Higgins, Carol Murphy, Meg Synder, Susan Firth, Nicole Wheeler, Francine Mack-Salvador, Lori Rowley, David Reich, Cheryl Smith, Linda Pagelson, Lin Liu, David Pomerantz, Scott Lilly, Bob Bonner, Melody Clark, Christina Hamilton, Norm Suchar, Dayle Lewis, Scott Boule, Kristin Holman, Charles Dujon, Matt Braunstein, Chris Kukla and the associate staff on the majority side: What do all of those names have in common? They are the people who really put together this bill. Every Member of the House will have an opportunity to vote on this bill, and I think we can do that proudly, because I think it is a good bill. But the people who worked just as hard and, in fact, probably harder and the people who worked out many of the compromises that were needed to produce a bill which is truly a bipartisan bill were the people whom I just named. I want to express my appreciation to each and every one of them, because without them, we would not be able to deliver what we are delivering to the American people here today. In my view, Mr. Chairman, this bill ought to be named the Family Opportunity and Health Security Act of 2001, because this bill, more than any other bill that we deal with, provides opportunity for average working families to share in the goodness that this society provides. And it also provides for the improvement of the health of every single American and, in fact, probably every single person in the world who is within the reach of any kind of civilized medicine. I think we ought to be very proud of that. This is the second bipartisan bill that we have had on labor, health and education and social services in the last 7 years, and I hope that it is going to be the first of a long series of bipartisan bills in the future. This bill is the place that you go to measure congressional commitment to equal opportunity in education, to worker protection, worker fairness at the bargaining table. It is the place you go to see what our society will do to help those who are unlucky enough to be without health care or who have special problems in the health care area and need special help. It is the place where virtually every family goes to obtain advances in medical care. And it is the place where many people in this society go who live life on the underside to find some help and some relief from the pain and pressure of their daily problems. And I would say it is also the place where we go if we want to have some measure of the determination that is being applied, the human ingenuity that is being applied, in order to unlock the scientific mysteries of disease and its treatment and to protect public health. And each and every Member of this House can be proud to vote for this bill. The bill is $12 billion over last year and I make an apology for absolutely not one dollar. I wish it had been more, because the families in this country who are serviced by this bill need more help than this bill will provide. The bill is $7 billion above the President, and I am pleased about that. In the area of education, for the past 5 years this Congress has produced an education bill which provides about a 13 percent increase on average. The President's budget this year initially recommended that that increase be cut to 5.8 percent. This bill provides a 17 percent increase in funding for education. There is no more important long-term investment that we can make than that one. In the area of education, special education, Mr. Chairman, is the third largest item in this bill. It is funded at $375 million above the President's recommendation. We have $7.7 billion in the bill. In 2 years we will have increased the Federal share of the cost of providing special education by 50 percent, and I hope we can increase it by 50 percent again in the next 2 years. Title I is the main program that we use to try to provide extra educational help to the children who need it most, disadvantaged children who are at risk of dropping out and never making it, either in school or in society. This bill provides $10.5 billion, $1.4 billion over the President's request, $1.7 billion over last year. This is the largest increase in that program in the history of the program. Pell Grants. That is the main program by which we assist average working-class families in this country to send their kids to college. It is a real door-opener to higher education opportunity. We provide in this bill a $4,000 maximum grant for those who qualify, $150 over the President's request, $250 over last year. Every dollar is well spent and will be well received by the American people. The block grant for teacher training and class size reduction, $1 billion over last year and $575 million over the budget recommendation. After-school centers, $154 million above the request. That program is in demand more than almost any I know in this bill, because as families' life-styles have changed, so have their needs to see to it that their children at all times will be in healthy, wholesome places. There is no more treacherous time for children from the age of 12 to 15 than the after-school hours. That is when most of the juvenile crime is committed in this country and that is when we need the most supervision of kids, and this program, I hope, will be an ever-expanding program to help provide that supervision. In the area of health care, we are $1.3 billion above the President, $3.4 billion above last year. Community health centers, we are $26 million above the President. That has also been a high priority item for the President himself. For Healthy Start, we are $102 million in this bill, $12 million again above the budget request. Centers for Disease Control, crucial in these times when we are concerned about public health, when we see the anthrax concerns in Florida, we are $265 million above last year, $430 million above the President's request. For bioterrorism, we have a 28 percent increase above last year and the President's budget and in a follow-on appropriation bill we will have substantially more money than we have in this bill for that same item. Mental health, $68 million above the President. There ought to be more. We have serious problems that are not being met in that area. Human services. The Low-Income Heating Assistance Program that helps keep low-income senior citizens warm in the wintertime so they do not have to choose between heating and eating, $300 million above the President's request. I wish it could be more. Head Start, $276 million above last year. In the area of the Labor Department, all of the personnel cuts in OSHA and Mine Safety have been eliminated. And we have added what I consider to be all too modest increases in other worker protection accounts. The international labor program that helps defend our workers and our country from the production of goods and services by slave labor and child labor abroad, we have restored fully the cuts that were recommended in the White House budget. Title VI, foreign language studies. As I said in Committee, when the Russians invaded Afghanistan a number of years ago, we did not have enough language specialists to respond in the correct language. So our information services responded in Farsi. That did not help anybody in Afghanistan. They may have understood it in Iran, but they did not understand it in Afghanistan. We missed the target a little bit. Since then, what has happened in that area? Almost nothing. That is why we have a 19 percent increase in this bill. As you know, we also had an increase in another bill for the same item that passed this House last week. All in all, this bill is far from perfect. I think given the needs of our society, we need more in education, in health care and in worker protection, but this is a very good bill given the circumstances in which we found ourselves in January. I very much appreciate the efforts made by the majority to make this a bipartisan bill. I very much appreciate the professionalism with which this bill has been approached by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished subcommittee chairman, and also the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). He and I have many, many political differences. We do not have very many personal differences. We have disagreed many times but we have dealt with each other, I think, in a straight-shooting way. And I appreciate the fact that after some concern on this bill, we have brought a bill to this floor today under the rules of the House which treats everyone fairly and respectfully. And I think because of that, we are going to see a very large vote for this bill on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, could I ask that the gentleman amend that to 12 minutes per side?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have had some 14 amendments on this side of the aisle that we have discouraged from offering today. I do not believe we have offered a single one from this side of the aisle. I would urge that we have the same response from all quarters of the House. When, in fact, we measure accurately the amount of money in title I which is aimed at teenagers, the resulting numbers will demonstrate that we spend at least as much on abstinence directed to teenagers as we provide in direct family planning services of the traditional variety aimed at teenagers. The gentleman has already achieved parity, and this bill gives him twice as large an increase in the programs he is for as we have in the other traditional family planning programs. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Let us keep this bill together and get out of here at a reasonable time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this amendment is really in the form of a limitation; and, therefore, it should be coming at the end of the bill. I think I would be within my rights if I made a point of order at this point. But out of courtesy to the gentleman and in order to save time, I will withdraw the reservation.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, no one in this Chamber has been more opposed to regional dairy compacts than have I. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I have exchanged many a strong word about that subject. But I participated in several meetings in the Speaker's office a while back, meetings which he hosted to try to see if there was not some way you could overcome the regional differences on the issue of dairy. At that time, the Speaker was lamenting the fact that the regions did not seem to be able to get together in any way. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has, I believe, brought to the House an approach which, although I believe it needs refinement, could in fact accomplish that purpose; and I want to congratulate him for it. I intend to vote for the amendment, even though I have been totally opposed to the idea of regional compacts, because I think the gentleman offers us a way to raise dairy farm income without discriminating geographically or regionally across the United States. So I would urge that the gentleman's amendment be adopted. It just seems to me that we need make no apology for trying to find ways to raise dairy income. The effect of the gentleman's amendment, I believe, would be to marginally increase dairy income in all sections of the country, and it has provisions that guard against oversupply; and it has provisions which equalize the burden of doing that. I think it is the most imaginative effort to overcome regional differences that I have seen in the last 4 or 5 years. I do think it has one defect, and I have an amendment that would correct that; and I would ask the House, however they intend to vote on the Sanders amendment, to simply adopt my amendment to perfect the Sanders amendment before we proceed to vote on it. As written, the amendment essentially provides for one Class I price, the price of milk for fluid use all across the country. The problem is that currently there are differences in Class I price in different regions of the country. Those differences are used to facilitate the movement of milk between regions, especially during times of short supply. By having a single unified price we would interfere with that process, and my amendment would simply adjust the numbers in the bill so that regardless of the size of the differentials in regions, you would take those differentials into account in setting the different regional prices in the gentleman's amendment. I would urge, however you intend to vote on the Sanders amendment, to adopt this amendment before you vote on that. Having said that, I would like to ask the gentleman a question, if the gentleman would engage in a colloquy. My understanding is that under the gentleman's proposal, a 50- or 100-cow farmer in Minnesota or Wisconsin where a Class I utilization is relatively low would receive the same payment as a 50- or 100-cow farmer in Florida or Vermont, or anywhere else a Class I utilization is higher. Is that correct?

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. OBEY. Payments would be made based upon the production, up to a limit of 500,000 pounds of milk per month, and not based on whether the milk would go into manufacturing products such as cheese or butter or fluid use. Is that correct?